Lt. Col. Robert Bateman - Is this loon for real?

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313

 

We crossed the line some time ago, it has just taken
me a while to get around to the topic. Sadly, that topic is now so
brutally evident that I feel shame. Shame that I have not spoken out
about before now -- shame for my country, shame that we have come to
this point. One story tripped me.

A woman charged with killing a fellow Alabama fan after the

end of last weekend's Iron Bowl football game was angry that the victim

and others didn't seem upset over the Crimson Tide's loss to archrival

Auburn, said the sister of the slain woman.

People, it is time to talk about guns.

My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management
of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end
of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the
realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at
my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the
nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting,
and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain
this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was
10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25.
And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to
violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this
difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask
me about these things, because it is the law.

And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court.

The people who sit on a nation's Supreme Court as supposed to be the
wisest among us. They are supposed to be the men and women who
understand and speak plainly about the most difficult topics confronting
our nation. Our Supreme Court, however, has been failing us, as their
actions have been almost the exact opposite of this ideal.

You do not have to read this full Supreme Court ruling, it is a supplemental. I can spell it out for you in ten seconds.

Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in
the Second Amendment which talks about "A Well Regulated Militia, Being
Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." did not matter. In other
words, they flunked basic high school history.

The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to
rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as
they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by
the Founding Fathers was, "Yeah, they didn't really mean what they
said."

You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words
to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an
embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational
system that failed to teach history.

But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the
rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a
little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of
the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and
well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were
created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war.
But even when partially "regulated," militias are sloppy things. They do
not always work well outside their own home states, and in our own
history and in our Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for militia
units to refuse to go out of their own state. In the Spanish-American
war the way around this limitation was for "interested volunteers" to
resign, en masse, from their militia units and then sign up -- again en
masse -- as a "volunteer" unit. It was a cumbersome solution to a
123-year-old problem.

Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I'll just tell you: As of 1903, the "militia" has been known as the National Guard.

They are "well regulated," and when called to do so as they have been
these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of
them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not
exist.

Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one
must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the
"well regulated militia." Their use, therefore, must be in defense of
the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset
enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible
in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following "Gun Plank"
to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:

1. The only guns permitted will be the following:

• a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
• b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
• c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five
  rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a
  defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to
  be holding a killing tool in the first place.

2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is
because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes.
Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited.
When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police
department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical
significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)

3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction
weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss
off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what
they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of
weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of
some other cops -- harder.)

4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it
will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of
ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.)
Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.

5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective
immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back
program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value
the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third
year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns
can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next
50 years.

6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who
create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be
bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.

These opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the
United States government, the United States Department of Defense, the
United States Army, or any other official body. As for the NRA, they can
sit on it. (Sorry, I grew up with Happy Days. "Sit on it" means something to those of my generation.) R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com.

Read more: Bateman On Guns - It's Time We Talk About Guns - Esquire

Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook

Visit us at Esquire.com

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

A real freaking winner we got there, Not really just another brain washed liberal loon who is ill informed and just plain stupid not to mention a disgrace to his uniform.

 

KK

[Horace Patootie, SASS #35798]

Maybe he's the best that someone could buy.

[willyboy]

thanks for bringing this idiot to our attention, Joe!

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Quite a disgrace.

[Moonshine 20515]

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman speaks well for the anti-gunners, read advocates of gun control. This is where they want to go but can't get there in on step, so they nickel and dime us with gun controls whenever the opportunity arises.

 

This guy is also incorrect on history as it applies to the Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1903. Must be he didn't read either of them and sure didn't read their history.

 

 

 

MS

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

He's a broken/useless 'tool'.

Plus an insult to those who have worn the uniform........

Sez he is liv'n in the UK--Then stay there!

LG

[Litl Red]

Interestingly, Bateman trots out figures to prove that English gun control works. What they really show is the English don't kill each other with guns, something to be expected considering their history and government.

 

We often say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Bateman was careful to keep from admitting the English kill each other at the same rate people living in the US kill each other. In other words, people kill people at about the same rate there as here. Want those figures? http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

This proves one indisputable fact...ya gotta keep a sharp eye on those old army colonels...they just can't be trusted!

[Moonshine 20515]

Well some of therm ....

 

MS

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

Got a reply from the Col.

Who are you and what are you talking about?



I am going to guess you saw a site that looked
something like this https://endtimeheadlines.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/colonel-who-vowed-to-disarm-americans-works-with-homeland-security/
and you believed it?



Bob Bateman

and I reply Yes I do and so do thousands of others.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

He replies back,

 

OK, so, as you know, originally, this past
Friday, it looked like this (with a photo): https://endtimeheadlines.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/colonel-who-vowed-to-disarm-americans-works-with-homeland-security/



It started on a site called “infowars” run by the
conspiracy theorist “Alex Jones.” Then
it got picked up by a bunch of Tea Party sites and then spread from there.



And then it all blew up in their faces.



See, I did write an article for Esquire about guns,
which you might want to read. You will
still likely disagree with me, but you will not have been suckered by what
other people said. For example, I never, ever, said anything about
taking/confiscating anybody’s guns at all. Nada. Never. And then we can, if you like, debate like
adults and perhaps one, or both of us, might learn something. You can find that here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
But at this point you have been comprehensively duped by the infowars people.



The dude in that picture (see the link I sent) is not me. Poor guy. Did not
even know what hit him and now his business is a wreck and he’s been getting
threats on an hourly basis phoned to him because the infowars site left it up
Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and almost all of Monday. Now it is all over the internet and will
never disappear.



I don't know who he is, but apparently this Alex Jones guy and his “infowars”
people tracked down some retired Lieutenant Colonel (I am not retired) who
lives in NY (I do not live in NY) and owns a company (I do not own any company)
that does consulting work for DHS (I don't even know anybody in DHS)...they
even linked to the dude's LinkedIn site...none of which is me, and built a
conspiracy theory around it about “disarming the American people.” That’s what they do, apparently, take words,
twist them, and make conspiracy theories about them.



The other stuff, about me and Professor Max Forte, is also twisted, it comes
from an online dialog I had with Max, who is a French Canadian-Italian Marxist
anthropologist at the University of Ontario.
He’s very anti-American, but also very depressing. That guy was talking
all the time about the coming "collapse of civilization" and I said
"I'm sorry for your future." Meaning, "I am sorry that you
believe you are living in a world where everything is collapsing, but I am a
positive person who believes in a future where things are more hopeful."



You might want to reconsider your choice of news
sources in the future. If you read what
I actually wrote (and not what somebody else says I wrote) and want to talk, I
am here for you.





Bob Bateman

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Good grief. The guy is denying what he wrote?

[FriscoCounty]

One problem with the original article is whoever wrote it didn't do his homework or he is purposefully being misleading. The Militia referred to in the Constitution is the State Militia. The Dick Act did not change that, it only regularized it across the states and provided for an organized militia that was supported with Federal funding. It also provided for the 'Reserve' Militia which consisted of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45. The Organized Militia was renamed the State National Guard at that time.

 

The Organized Militia was fully within the provenance of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. Both the Organized and reserve Militias were still only allowed to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions when called up.

 

Where is gets murky is in 1933. This is when the Defense Act of 1916 was amended to create The Army National Guard - the ready reserve for the US Army. It also provided that every Guard member actually was a member of both the Army National Guard and the State National Guard. They would only be active in one at a time, usually the State National Guard, but could be called into active Federal Service by the President on authority of Congress. This end run allowed the Federal Government to maintain the illusion of State Miltias, but allowed them to call up those troops for unrestricted Federal Service. Thus bypassing the Article I, Section 8 restriction on their duties when called up.

 

The National Guard, in particular the Army National Guard, is not the Militia referenced in the Constitution. It is the US Federal Government Military Reserve.

 

A clear litmus test of whether a State National Guard is a Militia or a Federal Reserve is who appoints the officers and who has the authority when it comes to training. If they are appointed by the State and the State has authority with regards to training, then it may be argued the force is a Militia. If the officers are appointed by the officers in the Federal government and training is done under the authority of the Federal government, then the force is Federal.

[Blackcat James SASS# 29509]

I believe this guy is a plant; one to hopefully have someone threaten him. Another is he does not live in the US another clue something is wrong. Last anything you say to this guy may be twisted and used by the tear down america crowd, remember one voice one message.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

One problem with the original article is whoever wrote it didn't do his homework or he is purposefully being misleading. The Militia referred to in the Constitution is the State Militia. The Dick Act did not change that, it only regularized it across the states and provided for an organized militia that was supported with Federal funding. It also provided for the 'Reserve' Militia which consisted of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45. The Organized Militia was renamed the State National Guard at that time.

 

The Organized Militia was fully within the provenance of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. Both the Organized and reserve Militias were still only allowed to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions when called up.

 

Where is gets murky is in 1933. This is when the Defense Act of 1916 was amended to create The Army National Guard - the ready reserve for the US Army. It also provided that every Guard member actually was a member of both the Army National Guard and the State National Guard. They would only be active in one at a time, usually the State National Guard, but could be called into active Federal Service by the President on authority of Congress. This end run allowed the Federal Government to maintain the illusion of State Miltias, but allowed them to call up those troops for unrestricted Federal Service. Thus bypassing the Article I, Section 8 restriction on their duties when called up.

 

The National Guard, in particular the Army National Guard, is not the Militia referenced in the Constitution. It is the US Federal Government Military Reserve.

 

A clear litmus test of whether a State National Guard is a Militia or a Federal Reserve is who appoints the officers and who has the authority when it comes to training. If they are appointed by the State and the State has authority with regards to training, then it may be argued the force is a Militia. If the officers are appointed by the officers in the Federal government and training is done under the authority of the Federal government, then the force is Federal.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

GG ~