If West Point paid this guy as a Historian, they should get their money back. As it is, he only seems to make a mediocre propagandist.
Molon lave, Master Bateman. Let’s see what you’ve got.
I will provide some personal observations, take them for what they are worth. First, a few disclaimers. I was a career infantry officer, serving for 25 years with command experience at the Lieutenant, Captain, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel level. I am a combat veteran, and I was an Assistant Professor at West Point. In 1994, shortly after I retired, I went to Bosnia as part of a White House study to determine what to do to train and equip the Bosnian and Croatian forces to bring a military stalemate to the Balkans. Myself, and the other retired officers on this mission were sent because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would not agree to a military team given the upcoming military mission of IFOR that might compromise our neutral stance.
I have run across a number of Bateman’s ilk over the years. They are well educated, smart, and masters of their craft at the theoretical level. They are not, generally, very good soldiers primarily because they do not really like soldiering at the retail level. It’s pretty nasty down there, cold nights, wet days, miserable food, and people shoot at you. They prefer the more lofty perch of academia and they peddle their limited military experience as augmentations to their CV. But, they are academics, and pose academic solutions to military problems. Liberals in Battle Dress is the best way to describe them.
I mention my experiences in Bosnia because it was there that I saw first hand the efforts of the Yugoslav Army to disarm the populace. They were quite familiar with how the Nazis had done this, and simply implemented the Nazi plan. The Croats and the Bosniacs would have done the same thing, but they didn’t control the Army, so were held powerless to counter what happened. Thousands were safely rounded up and slaughtered once the populace was disarmed. World history is replete with similar examples.
Bateman would have done well in the Yugoslav Army. He would have known quite well what the Nazis had done, and we would have been eager to carry out the plan. After all, people usually voluntarily comply, so no shooting is required and when the day is done you can have a nice meal with a good wine, sleep in a warm bed, and have your pick of the comely local women. That’s Bateman’s kind of military operations.
I don’t care much for these types.
For those who care, the traitor can be reached at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com (somehow it is not displaying right, so use cut and paste).
I don’t plan to contact him. There is no point in using words with those who have sold their souls; all we can do is prepare to deal with their actions. I do not want to see what will happen to the free world if he gets his way and only criminals and the government (will there even be a difference in a disarmed liberal country?) are armed.
Despite our best efforts, liberals still manage to infiltrate an otherwise honorable profession.
Beware...when CW-II starts, we all know on which side they will be.
Well Benedict Arnold was in the military too.
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.
He was given clearance from the top. This is scary stuff.
This sort of stupid attitude is why he is only a Lt. col.
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.
***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.
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.
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...
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.
This guy is a disgrace to the US Army. If you read the comments section to his article, Bateman occasionally responds to other comments like all snarky, arrogant liberals do. He thinks he is better than everyone else and only certain trusted people, like himself, should ever be armed. He is a total Stalinist, Obamabot suck-up. MOLON LABE.
“Officers on active duty are generally forbidden from doing this sort of thing, so one wonders if he received special dispensation to publish this article. As he is stationed in D.C., the natural speculation is that he is doing so with the blessings of the administration.”
He’s figured out the fast track to general in today’s America.
Only an idiot would think that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the governments ability to be armed.
Another name on the list.
I've got a better topic for "Bateman": It's time to talk about Ft. Hood, the Justice Dept., Eric Holder, and why that bastard Hasan is still soaking up building heat.
Better interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
A standing military being needed for a viable nation, this country will have one; notwithstanding, the people retain the right to own and responsibly use the same weapons as that military.
At least Benedict Arnold was a general.