Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military officer calls for nationwide gun-grab
Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 4 December, 2013 | David Codrea

Posted on 12/05/2013 5:34:33 PM PST by marktwain

A firestorm has been started on Esquire’s The Politics Blog with a Tuesday opinion piece by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman titled “It’s time to talk about guns and the Supreme Court.” He not only takes SCOTUS and Justice Antonin Scalia to task for their Heller decision interpretation of the Second Amendment, but goes on to propose citizen disarmament edicts that dispense with false assurances given by some in the gun ban camp that nobody wants to take our guns away.

Bateman does, big time, and makes no bones about it. In a way, he’s done us a service by giving a glimpse of the end game less candid incrementalists are inching toward.

Per his profile at Small Wars Journal, he “is an infantryman, historian and prolific writer. Bateman was a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and has taught Military History at the U.S. Military Academy.”

That he can boast these achievements brings an assumed gravitas to the discussion he wants to start simply with his credentials. When such a man speaks out, there is a natural presumption of authority.

The problem is, his arguments don’t live up to that expectation, and rather quickly fall apart with just a superficial analysis.

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismisses that responding to a comment poster that “they are not ‘well regulated’ [and] are therefore not the body considered in the 2nd Amendment as protected.”

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; bateman; esquire; guncontrol; robertbateman; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: CrazyIvan
LOLOL!!! 100%...
41 posted on 12/05/2013 6:08:59 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

bttt


42 posted on 12/05/2013 6:09:02 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Well said, Sir, and thanks.


43 posted on 12/05/2013 6:11:24 PM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

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


44 posted on 12/05/2013 6:12:51 PM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


45 posted on 12/05/2013 6:14:03 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoWindhorse
probably a JAG....

...off. Definitely a jagoff.

46 posted on 12/05/2013 6:14:18 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


47 posted on 12/05/2013 6:15:43 PM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


48 posted on 12/05/2013 6:18:03 PM PST by wjr123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


49 posted on 12/05/2013 6:20:16 PM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

***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.


50 posted on 12/05/2013 6:20:51 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Yep. Bring it.


51 posted on 12/05/2013 6:20:57 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.
At least now we know what TRAITOR Robert L. Bateman looks like.
52 posted on 12/05/2013 6:21:19 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Excellent post .. thank you.


53 posted on 12/05/2013 6:23:49 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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...

54 posted on 12/05/2013 6:24:05 PM PST by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
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?
55 posted on 12/05/2013 6:25:02 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: familyop; centurion316

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


56 posted on 12/05/2013 6:25:20 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


57 posted on 12/05/2013 6:26:46 PM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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).


58 posted on 12/05/2013 6:28:56 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

How about a Swastica?


59 posted on 12/05/2013 6:31:53 PM PST by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

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.


60 posted on 12/05/2013 6:35:03 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson