Military officer calls for nationwide gun-grab

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 4 December, 2013 | David Codrea

[Chode]

LOLOL!!! 100%...

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[familyop]

Well said, Sir, and thanks.

[familyop]

cbt. engr. (cbt.) National Guard, ‘89-’96., enlisted type

[FreedomPoster]

Here is the FR thread linking to and discussing the LTC Bateman Esquire article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3097923/posts

My take: low life gun grabber bucking to make O6 with a political promotion. He has violated his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.

[Sirius Lee]

probably a JAG....

...off. Definitely a jagoff.

[SC_Pete]

He was given clearance from the top. This is scary stuff.

[wjr123]

This sort of stupid attitude is why he is only a Lt. col.

[buffaloguy]

He is quite old tobe in the armed forces and is quite a bit overweight (320?) So I think he retired and currently resides in London.

His arguments are wrongbut the most striking error is statement that murder rate with guns in the US is 10.3 per 100,000. The last numbers for 2012 are 3.9 per100,000. A huge error and one which calls into question his expertise and scholarship skillset.

This piece is poorly reasoned and he may wish to avail himself of “The Federalist Papers” as he may find some enlightening insights in this new source of information.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues.***

Bunkum. Before the Civil War, the SCOTUS ruled, in the Dred Scot Vs Stanford that one of the rights that black people would be the RIGHT TO GO ABOUT ARMED WHEREVER THEY WENT.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

After the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves, a new definition of the 2nm Amendment was needed to keep guns out of black people’s hands, so they came up with the “militia” rule and a “Collective right” definition.

[andyk]

Yep. Bring it.

[Yosemitest]

The 2001-2002 Military Fellows:
(l-r standing) Lt. Col. Renwick Payne ANG, Lt. Col. Patrick Kelly USA, Lt. Col. Mark Brilakis USMC, Lt. Col. Kevin McLaughlin USAF, and Maj. Robert Bateman USA,
with CSIS President Dr. John Hamre (seated).
If politician Lt. Col. Robert Bateman was worth a crap, the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF would have purged him out of the military, also.

Has-been Lt. Col. proves he knows nothing about the Constitution he swore an oath to defend



An aging U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel named Robert Bateman embarrassed himself in the pages of Esquire yesterday, in a screed entitled, It’s time to talk about guns and the Supreme Court.

Bateman seems to have a frothing hatred of the Heller decision in general, Justice Antonin Scalia in specific, and perhaps the poorest grasp of American history and law that I’ve ever seen from someone of his rank, which is particularly stunning considering he claims to be a historian.  The “Peter Principle” seems to be alive and well in the U.S. Army.

Bateman claims—incredibly—that in the Heller decision, Scalia ignored  the first half of the Second Amendment, which reads “A well Regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

In so doing Bateman purposefully misreads Heller, betrays his ignorance of what the phrase “well-regulated” meant in the historical context in which it was written and what it still means today, and intentionally ignores the roles and types of militia in America law, culture, and history as it suits his whims.

What is particularly rich is that in his false accusation that Justice Scalia was cherry-picking which parts of the Second Amendment to support (a conclusion that can only be arrived at by a willful misreading of Scalia’s opinion), Bateman himself cherry-picks how U.S. Code defines the militia.

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.

Bateman is quite selective in his definition of what constitutes the militia, because the militia has always be so much more than the National Guard, a fact codified into U.S. Code:

10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard is the smaller sub-set of a two-part militia system, in which the unorganized militia has always been the much, much larger group.

In his dotage, Bateman then chooses to pretend that the Second Amendment applies only to ancient muskets and/or modern hunting arms (his arguments as to which applies, and why, seems quite muddled; poor fellow), and suggests that an arbitrary 400% ammunition tax is not a clear infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. His list of what he would and would not allow if he were king is truly astonishing to behold.

Unfortunately for Bateman we remain a nation of laws where the ramblings of staff officers at the end of their careers are to be viewed as mere curiosities, and not to be taken seriously.

At least now we know what TRAITOR Robert L. Bateman looks like.

[tomkat]

Excellent post .. thank you.

[logi_cal869]

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman (Major as pictured, roughly 2002, CSIS Military Fellow)

Always good to attach a face to...

On a more personal note: Now I understand why soldiers are now disarmed during visits by ranking military & civilian leaders in-theater...

[fr_freak]

Yep. That’s like saying that people are involved in the criminal aspect of the illegal drug trade because drugs are illegal, that if you legalize them, all that illegal activity will stop.

Your analogy is apt in the sense that criminals will be criminals regardless of their chosen field of crime. However, since you compared it to the whole drug thing, the other side of that analogy is that if you outlaw guns, plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens will suddenly be made into criminals. Why won't those law-abiding citizens just give up their guns? Because they believe themselves to be free people, and that they have the right to own weapons for whatever reason.

It is the same with drugs. There are many criminals who use, produce and sell drugs, but there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens who like to drink or get high now and then. You make all of that illegal, and suddenly decent people as well as criminals are now outlaws. Why won't those otherwise law-abiding people just give up their drugs? Because they believe themselves to be free people and they have the right to smoke whatever they want.

I don't want to turn this into a drug war thread, but I see the push to outlaw guns as springing from the same mentality that wants to outlaw drugs or light bulbs or cough medicine - a mentality that says that a grown man does not have the right to live his life as he sees fit, that he must be controlled for his own good. I think many otherwise conservative people have been conditioned to be more open to banning or heavily restricting guns precisely because these other legal areas have been the camel's nose under the tent, and now many people are completely comfortable with the idea of restricting individual rights in this way. All you have to do is ask yourself, would the Founders have tolerated gun control OR drug control? Would they have tolerated a government that thinks it has the right to tell a man what he can do in his own house?

[FreedomPoster]

Thanks to both of you.

See my link just above to the original thread on this. My full comments there are here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3097923/posts?page=91#91

[yldstrk]

Now it starts, just like with the police, the most important value to the military will become whether they go home safe and sound at night, not whether they protect the people who are paying them for protection.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Sorry, but I can’t agree with your analogy.

Drugs do not give the citizenry the ability to actively and powerfully resist tyranny.

There is all the difference in the world in outlawing substances used as a recreational departure from normalcy (which you may consider a use of freedom) and outlawing the very means that a free people would use to remain free (firearms ownership).

[stubernx98]

How about a Swastica?

[centurion316]

Bateman wants to become a card carrying member of the Leftist elite. Impossible for a military officer to do unless you publicly renounce your militarist roots.