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 ...
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.
This is chilling. I pray that no enlistedman or woman thinks this way. The brass I can understand having to kowtow to politicos, but a few hundred thousand soldiers vs. a few million gun owners wouldn’t be a fair fight just on numbers alone; and that’s assuming every soldier would be in for the fight. I suspect most would go AWOL.
No problem Colonel, why don’t you come get mine.
LTC Bateman, you fail at propaganda forever.
no more military pensions...no more enticements...no more keeping people in the service who do not belong there such as this creep....
its like teaching....you just can't get rid of them easily no matter how much they stink....
This guy has to be one of Barry’s new “gay” soldiers. A normal American male would not talk like this. He does need to keep his goatsmelling, military @$$ out of politics though. If he doesn’t, it’s court martial time.
He is a moron. He believes that the presence of a gun means more crime, therefore remove the guns and somehow the people will forget how to murder each others.
probably a JAG....
Yep. Let the snivelly little LTC come over, himself, and try to take ‘em.
Bateman and Robbin`
The Founding Fathers DID NOT write the Bill of Rights to guarantee that the government has the right to field a National Guard. Anyone who thinks that they did, needs to lay of the recreational drugs for a while.
Try to take the illegal guns first. Start with Chicago.
That’s how you get promoted in Obama’s military-agree with him.
The left will soon own the military just like they own education, media, religion, government, and the culture. We are fighting a rear guard action.
Opinions are like *ssholes, Colonel - everyone has one.
On Civvy Street, yours is no big deal.
Yep, he is bucking for promotion in Obama’s queer military.
West Point was originally chickified in 1976. Look it up.
This lite kernel has a full imperial dispensation from the Anointed One to call for citizen disarmament. But in the Army I remember, if you propose a mission, you must outline an operational plan; situation, enemy forces, friendly forces, mission, concept of operation, command & signal, etc.
If he’s an infantry officer, that’s the very least he can do: tell us bitter clingers exactly how his `forces’ will be deployed to disarm Americans and take away our guns.
We’re waiting, you arrogant ringknocker!
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.
Wrong.
People turn to crime — any crime — for the high profits associated with the risk based upon illegal activity. Legalize drugs and all those criminals will not suddenly become law-abiding citizens. They will turn to other crime. And they will also figure out ways to stay involved in drug-related crime, because some part of it will always be illegal.
Remove all guns, and the criminals will still have them. They will simply be able to commit crimes without the interference of people defending themselves.
This guy is just another ahole who spent enough time rubbing the right brass knobs to get where he is and now he’s trying to polish the right brass knobs to get promoted to the next level.
Perhaps there is some truth to the Alex Jones reports that Obammie and his Commies are interviewing military officers and asking them if they would use military force against the citizenry if ordered to.
Sounds like this guy would jump at the chance.
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.