Thread: Army Officer Insults Supreme Court for Heller Decision; Calls for Gun Bans, Turn-Ins,

Army Officer Insults Supreme Court for Heller Decision; Calls for Gun Bans, Turn-Ins, and More

Posted on December 5, 2013

To say the least, some of the characters who have appeared on the national scene in recent years have demonstrated some enormous egos and used some pretty ill-tempered language in their efforts to turn this nation into something we wouldn't recognize. But Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman is challenging them for top dishonors in that regard, with an over-the-top rant in Esquire magazine this month.

You pretty much know what's coming when a guy begins by claiming, "My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. . . . My job . . . is about killing. I orchestrate violence. . . . I am really good at my job."

Real warriors don't brag, of course. They let their actions speak for themselves. And real warriors support the Second Amendment and oppose gun control, as indicated by a letter signed by over 1,100 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers in January.

Bateman's self-adulation was just the beginning, however.

He next attacked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for "his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language" in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Bateman also extended his attack to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas for concurring with Justice Scalia. "They flunked basic high school history," Bateman said. Bateman added that Esquire readers could read the Hellerdecision for themselves, but that it really isn't necessary, because "I can spell it out for you in ten seconds."

At this point, we found ourselves asking to be spared additional arrogance and ignorance, but Bateman wasn't inclined to oblige.

Bateman continued to explain his factually incorrect idea is that the Second Amendment's reference to the well regulated militia means that no one has the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. "As of 1903, the 'militia' has been known as the National Guard," Bateman insisted.

Wrong, of course. The "well-regulated militia" consists of the citizenry at large. The Dick Act of 1903 divided the Militia of the United States--the subset of the well-regulated militia that is obligated to serve if called upon--into its organized and unorganized components, the former being the National Guard and Naval Militia (when not in federal service), and the latter being all able-bodied males of age and some females who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. We could "spell it out for you in 10 seconds," but you can see for yourself by reading Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code.

Bateman should have done the same before sitting down at the computer to advertise his ignorance of history and law, and his disrespect for the Supreme Court and the Army, to the world over the internet. And while he was at it, he should have looked at Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits commissioned military officers from using "contemptuous words" against the President, who nominates Supreme Court Justices, and Congress, the upper chamber of which approves those nominations. Even if Bateman's bashing of Supreme Court justices doesn't actually violate this provision, it certainly shows a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of government unbecoming of an officer of the United States Army.

Alas, Bateman didn't have the time to read either the U.S. Code or the UCMJ, because--boundless egos knowing no bounds--he fancies himself to be running for president on a platform that goes well beyond even Obama's anti-gun agenda.
The ambitious lieutenant colonel must be running on the Banana Republic ticket, because the "Bateman-Pierce platform"--whoever "Pierce" is--will include a ban on the purchase of any firearm other than a musket, double-barreled shotgun, or five-shot, bolt-action rifle, he said. There will be a 400 percent tax on ammunition. And a government program will "buy back" all of your guns. Those that you do not sell will be forfeited to the local police for destruction upon your death. "We will pry your gun from your cold, dead fingers," Bateman added.

To which we have to ask, "you and what Army?"


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-and-more.aspx

http://www.alipac.us/f19/1-100-green...-rifle-271778/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/green-beret...6/#post1326161

http://www.alipac.us/f19/1-000-speci...ndment-271581/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA; ya gotta love the Sissy Boys that have Delusions of Grandeur

1. 460,000 Soldiers with DRONES; M1 Abrams; Bradley Fighting Vehicles couldn't hold onto 17 miles of highway between Baghdad and Baghdad Airport ... I'm not beating up my fellow soldiers; just describing the difficulty.

2. a LTC is normally charged with 600 - 800 men/women depending on the TOE "Table of Allowances" ... Thats It <--- if your trying to make yourself look Important; you just failed... Not Impressed in the least

You pretty much know what's coming when a guy begins by claiming, "My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. . . . My job . . . is about killing. I orchestrate violence. . . . I am really good at my job."

3. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA ... yep... self centered TURD .... I'm willing to bet he has trouble opening up at ketchup bottle...

4. Someone needs to tell him to put on some sunscreen

Sounds like a man wanting to run for office and as a good liberal willing to say anything to win.

An Oath Breaker Of The Worst Kind Says He Would Pry Your Guns From Your Cold, Dead Fingers

December 9, 2013 by Sam Rolley

“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.)” — Lt. Col. Robert Bateman writes in his Esquire piece, “It’s Time To Talk About Guns And The Supreme Court”

Last week, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who has billed himself as “an infantryman, historian and prolific writer,” wrote a blog post forEsquire, breathlessly exclaiming that a comprehensive gun-grab in the United States is long overdue. The author claims that the Supreme Court has gotten the definition of “well-regulated militia” completely wrong and offers his suggestions for abrogating the 2^nd Amendment as it stands today.

Bateman attributes his utter “embarrassment” of the Nation’s highest court, writing:

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.

Bateman then appeals to his military history background to inform his readers that the “well-regulated” portion of the 2^nd Amendment was further emboldened by the 1903 passage of the Militia Act, which created the National Guard.

Bateman’s argument is that Congress saw the need for the Act because less “well-regulated” militias formed throughout the Nation’s early history were “sloppy things.”

Bateman writes:

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.

Bateman’s logic hinges on the assumption that the 2^nd Amendment is irrelevant because government has provided the people with a State-controlled “militia.” To accept his point of view however, one must accept that the Amendment never contained any words beyond “a well-regulated militia.”

Lost on Bateman, it seems, is that the historical context surrounding the creation of the United States Constitution — and especially the portion that is the Bill of Rights — is very important to 2^nd Amendment advocates. And it doesn’t take a massive leap of logic to deduce that the men who signed the Constitution might have had a bit of trouble in seeing the benefit of a completely Federalized militia (the National Guard) to the people of a free State.

The Nation’s Founders weren’t averse to the idea of government being able to provide for the defense of the Nation with a military machine. But the Constitutional answer to whether a Federal army should exist was undoubtedly a compromise.

Anti-Federalists saw dangers in the creation of a standing military presence on U.S. soil. In hisPolitical Disquisitions (1774), anti-Federalist James Burgh called peacetime standing armies “one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses.” And Brutus, a series of essays that voiced opposition to ratification, asserted that standing armies “are dangerous to the liberties of a people… not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.”

On the other side, Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton supported government’s military power. He wrote in Federalist No. 23: “These powers [of the Federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.”

The resulting compromise exists in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power…

…To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This section of the Constitution, providing guidelines for Congress, is what provided the authority Congress needed to pass the Militia Act, which Bateman believes should nullify the purpose of the 2^nd Amendment. But there’s a problem with Bateman’s assumption.

The Article, giving Congress the power concerned with the general welfare of the collective States, the Republic bound by the Constitution, has nothing to do with the rights of the people. The Constitution’s pointed concern for the Nation’s individual persons appears in the Bill of Rights, which was the answer to fear over the possibility of tyranny of government.

Bateman, who so haughtily accused certain Justices of flunking history class, evidently missed the lessons during his own education that explained how The Bill of Rights provides States and individuals protections against the Federal government.

That would explain why the anti-gun advocate is blind to the importance of the collection of words following, “A well-regulated militia. “

“… being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Bateman can have his National Guard in all of its Federal glory. But he certainly cannot claim that the existence of the National Guard supersedes the American individuals’ right to bear arms.

The very existence of the Bill of Rights (remember: meant for the people and the States as a protection against Federal overreach) provides that, in the Founders’ vision, the creation of the National Guard could arguably be considered a threat to “the security of a free State.”

Yes, the Governor of a specific State is generally considered to be in command of the State’s guard units. But placing those units under Federal orders is a not-too-difficult process for Washington, thanks to defense authorization legislation.

Bateman has gotten it wrong in claiming the Federal government has the right to take guns since the Federal government has provided its own answer to “well-regulated militia.” He’s also not flattering his credentials as a historian if he is asking Americans to believe that there is no chance that they will ever be threatened by tyranny from leadership. Bad things happen, and world history has proven that sometimes the wrong people get in charge with overwhelming populist support. When the supporters realize their folly, it’s usually too late.

But let’s give Bateman the benefit of doubt and examine his gun control proposals for common-sense solutions to violence in America.

Without further ado, Bateman’s 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.

It’s relatively safe to assume that, by the standards of Americans with any respect for the Constitution — and private property and civil liberty in general, for that matter — Bateman’s suggestions are outright offensive. It almost seems as though Bateman is, as the Internet likes to say, trolling gun-rights advocates.
“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,” he stated in his piece.

A glance at Bateman’s credentials provides a little bit of insight as to why he’s comfortable with disarming Americans and putting full faith in Washington and the military-industrial complex.
The anti-gun crusader’s Linkedin page provides a curricula vitae which boasts an impressive work history for anyone looking to make friends among the military-industrial elite.

Via his profile:

Bob Bateman’s Overview

Current

• Founder & President at Alliance Defense Marketing Associates, LLC

Past

• Senior Managing Director at Foxhall Capital Management
• Senior Vice President Global Sales at American Defense Systems Inc.
• President, XTF Capital (Broker Dealer) and XTF Advisors (RIA) at XTF Global Asset Management, LLC

• Vice President of Sales & Marketing at Capital Analysis Incorporated
• Police Officer/Detective at Hampton N.H. Police Department

And:

Over three decades of proven leadership and senior management responsibility and experience beginning with a fifteen (15) year tenure at the United States Treasury Department where he held positions as Deputy State Director, State Director, District Director, Acting Regional Director and Assistant National Director of Sales (G/S 15). With the National Director of Sales he shared first line responsibility for the overall supervision and direction of a 250 person national sales organization, including seven (7) departmental direct reports.

Bob is a serving Colonel, General Staff, Army Division Headquarters, New York Guard as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G/2) and is past Deputy Commander of the 88th Brigade, Headquarters, New York City.

…COL Bateman is also the Head of Delegation of a NGO with ECOSOC status to the United Nations Organization, New York, New York.

Bateman’s current business, Alliance Defense Marketing Associates LLC, a “global premier risk management” firm, brags about its cozy relationship with the Department of Homeland Security on its website.

If, as he claims, Bateman was “tripped” on to his soapbox by a recent headline involving a senseless shooting and his anti-gun crusade is really about encouraging less American violence and death, he should:

1. Re-read his Constitution, and
2. Use his newly found knowledge of the government’s limited power to question his friends in the defense community about what authorizes all the violence and death carried out by the Federal government, oftentimes when no imminent threat to Americans exists, on a rolling basis.

In the meantime, Americans who appreciate the Constitution will continue to hang on to their guns with great vigor. Among many of those Americans, efforts by people less concerned with the Constitution to remove individual and State rights listed in the Nation’s supreme law will never be fully embraced, providing the unsettling potential to encourage revolutionary zeal. And in a reality where defense of the Constitution against enemies of freedom at home can no longer be accomplished politely, Bateman’s silly “cold, dead, fingers” comment would take on a new and very dangerous meaning.

Historical examples of those permitted to posses firearms– tools which Bateman suggests belong only in the hands of people following government orders– ruthlessly oppressing unarmed masses must be moot in the anti-gun advocate’s mind.

Reading his Esquire piece, one could conclude that Bateman belongs to a group of people who certainly cannot imagine a reality in which tyranny prevails and must be taken on by the citizenry following decades of quiet government efforts to increase top-down control.

At this point, it should again be noted that Bateman’s criticism of a perceived lack of history knowledge among the Nation’s Supreme Court Justices is sorely misdirected.

But there’s also the possibility that Bateman’s disdain for gun ownership comes from a more sinister place than ignorance. Perhaps he has imagined the tyranny scenario. Perhaps many people in positions of political and military power have.

Could it be that a rather obvious interest in disarming citizens and nationalizing firearms manufacturers exists in furthering the expansion of government power with limited rebellion? It wouldn’t be the first time in history.

In fact, by the time the 2nd Amendment was written, that unarmed people are easier to control had been a fairly widely understood concept among oppressors for centuries. The Founders of this Nation understood that; and being interested in protecting the security of a “free State,” they guaranteed the right of “the people” to bear arms to keep tyrants at bay.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/0...-dead-fingers/

Colonel Who Vowed to Disarm Americans Allegedly Threatened Blogger

Oath-violating Bateman not so peaceful during online disagreement

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 6, 2013

Retraction: An earlier version of this article attributed a LinkedIn page and an image to a different ‘Colonel Robert J. Bateman’ of Alliance Defense Marketing Associates LLC. This has now been corrected. We apologize to Mr. Robert J. Bateman for the mistake.

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, the second amendment-hating Army Officer who caused controversy after vowing to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,” once made alleged veiled death threats to a blogger.

Earlier this week, Bateman, an active military commander, penned a piece for Esquire magazine in which he promised to push for a total ban on all firearms besides muskets, shotguns and rifles, and shut down all gun manufacturers except for those who produced weapons for the federal government and the armed forces (you will be disarmed, the state will have a monopoly on firepower).

Critics contend that Bateman’s revulsion for the second amendment (which he woefully misinterprets) “proves he knows nothing about the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.”

Bateman’s promise to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers” was an inflammatory reference to his advocacy for making it illegal for guns on his imaginary blacklist to be inherited. “I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” wrote Bateman.

Later in the article, Bateman says disarming the American people is all about encouraging “less violence and death,” although such sentiments weren’t evident when he became embroiled in an argument with a blogger which ended up with the Colonel making a thinly veiled death threat.

The argument concerned a former senior female Human Terrain Team (HTT) member who wasallegedly subjected to a death threat by an active duty lieutenant at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

After Bateman engaged in “ad hominem attacks” against Maximilian Forte, the blogger who posted the story, and was subsequently banned, he resorted to a veiled death threat of his own.

“And I apologize for the future. Not really my fault. But I am sorry nonetheless,” wrote Bateman.

“You apologize for the future. It was worth approving your message just so that others can see the veiled threat,” responded Forte.

Bateman repeated the threat in a subsequent post when he remarked, “And again, Max, truly, I am sorry for your future.”

Bateman’s thinly veiled death threats reveal him to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who claims to be all about reducing violence yet resorts to barely disguised rhetorical threats of violence against his ideological adversaries.

It seems abundantly clear that it is Bateman who has a problem with violence and is most likely a danger to himself and those around him. It is therefore Bateman, and not the American people, who should be disarmed.

Feel free to politely email Col. Bateman and let him know what you think about his views on the second amendment.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Friday, December 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm

http://www.infowars.com/colonel-who-...land-security/

Lt. Col. Bob Bateman “Apologizes for the Future”?

Posted on 14 March 2009 by Maximilian Forte

A U.S. military officer assigned to the Pentagon, who had ample room for play on this blog with 27 comments posted (updated: now 32), and who objected to finally being banned after posting ad hominem attacks against myself, has now apparently decided that veiled threats will win him space. He is right — see this comment approved today:

Well, at least I now know that you, at least, see what I type. That evidence, at least, now exists for your readers. As does the fact that you ban free speech on your site. Since your readers now see that you openly posted, “This is from the man who is now claiming that I “silenced” him and tried to avoid him challenging my ideas. Of course, he is saying that in private, because he has been banned from this blog and has sent four more messages nonetheless (not included in the list above).”Well Max, I really could not contrive a confession of oppression of free speech or discourse any more clearly than the way you just laid it out for your readers. Well played son. Well played indeed. “He claimed I ’silenced’ him” and “he has been banned” are wonderfully juxtaposed.“OPEN” Anthropology.Regards Max. And I apologize for the future. Not really my fault. But I am sorry nonetheless. Bob

My response:

You apologize for the future. It was worth approving your message just so that others can see the veiled threat.It is OPEN Anthropology…just no longer open to you, and your kind. You had your say, and became repetitive, and rather obnoxious, especially as you turned some of your comments on this blog into ad hominem attacks toward someone (me) who had been very analytical, even handed, calm, and reasonable with you. But then the military wolf in sheep’s clothing is all ready to pounce, eh Bob?Remember, you have a right to free speech. But not on this blog: it is a privilege, and you abused it.

This is the degree to which Bateman was silenced on this blog — an index of all the comments he posted that appeared:

BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/18 at 10:34am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/18 at 10:26am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/18 at 7:44am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/14 at 11:05pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/14 at 10:30pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 7:16pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 7:08pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 6:05pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 1:41pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 12:46pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 9:07am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/11 at 8:53am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/10 at 9:27am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/10 at 9:24am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/10 at 9:07am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/09 at 7:32am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/09 at 7:28am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 9:58pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 9:35pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 1:20pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 12:54pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 12:44pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 12:23pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 12:11pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 10:37am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 10:35am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 9:16am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 8:44am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/04 at 8:04am
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/03 at 2:18pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/02 at 2:13pm
BOB BATEMAN: Submitted on 2009/03/02 at 1:33pm

Bateman will of course deny that any threat was implied, that it is the working of a paranoid imagination. When someone in the most powerful military institution on the planet apologizes to you personally, for what will happen in the future, what kind of statement is that and what is intended? We shall see shortly, I hope.

Bateman will also repeat his lie of not engaging in ad hominem attacks. This one was the last straw,originally posted here (my responses followed it there):

…your apparent lack of eductation on military affairs and international relations. But then, of course, you are a minor teacher without a single published monograph, so I suppose you have to try and make your academic mark somewhere, eh? Anything for tenure.

Not only is it ad hominem, it is a basic lie. Mission accomplished, Bob, you live up to the values of your institution. An academic, you are not, not even a good poser and pretender.

Well, Bob, you wanted attention, now you got it. You have all of our attention now, with your very own post on this blog, all about you. Is this what you wanted?

Friends and interested parties can also reach Bob at any of the following IP addresses from which he likes to post:

140.185.55.77
69.255.219.16
76.111.31.58


http://zeroanthropology.net/2009/03/...or-the-future/

It's Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Court

By Lt. Col. Robert Bateman on December 3, 2013

View All Comments (2711)




Alex Wong/Getty Images

In his opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia spent nearly 4,000 words denying that the Second Amendment included the words, "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..."

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

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