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."
There are two problems with Bateman's assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, "Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."
As for who is protected by the Second Amendment, it's the people, just like it says. Alexander Hamilton addressed "well regulated" in The Federalist No. 29, conceding "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped … "
Hamilton recognized that soldiering is a profession, and knew that people had farms to work, shops to tend, trades to ply. But the value of them being "properly armed and equipped" was nonetheless recognized, even if they weren't "well regulated" as a body -- what regulation they would be subjected to would come if and when mustered, but there was no precondition on arms ownership imposed on what they could possess outside of militia duty.
As wrong as he is on chastising SCOTUS for "flunk[ing] basic high school history," that's not where Bateman has generated the most applause from his "progressive" followers and the most contempt from gun rights advocates. That comes when he tells us about laws he'd like to see enacted.
He wants to end the practice of police being able to auction seized weapons. He wants to do a nationwide "buyback." He wants to nationalize arms manufacturers. He wants draconian and escalating ammunition taxes.
But wait, as late TV pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there's more.
He wants to limit private gun ownership to "Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets … Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns [and] Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds."
"We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers," Bateman threatens. So much for the illusion of civilian control of the military, although it does drive home the fear the Founders had of a standing army.
"That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes," he explains.
"Hopefully," but not necessarily, Colonel? Will you also wait for my heirs?
"When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them," he dictates. "Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved."
While he doesn't flesh out how all this will be enforced, he does offer some chilling clues.
"My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence," he explains. "There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.
"I am really good at my job," he self-assesses.
Ah, that monopoly of violence the "progressives" are so intent on crushing the Republic under …
Still, since he started the conversation in this direction, it would be helpful if Oberstleutnant Bateman would provide some specifics.
What happens if some of us say "No"? What happens if some of us resist? Creatively? Give us some scenarios here. I mean, after all, you guys have jets and tanks and nukes and everything.
Flesh your jackbooted terror campaign of national conquest out for us. Tell us about that violence you will organize, you ridiculous and contemptible totalitarian.
Jeez, Bob, we're not scared of you and we are everywhere. What now?
Well, it might be the time to remind ourselves that before he proved what he was really made of, one of our greatest military heroes was Benedict Arnold.
I say good that he is trying this it will make the law clear or force the Supreme to act in such a manner as to make it very clear as to what the law is and is not, preventing further government restrictions or forcing the issue to an armed resolution of the real intent of the law and the Constitution.
He can't do it by himself. He might be able to disarm me--but if he does the trouble for him will begin-- I would REALLY feel bad for his future.I still believe there are veterans--and former law enforcers--and just plain ol' good ol'boys with pick-up trucks and huntin' dawgs who will convince him that there was a mistake made by the tyrant. seems the Brits once thought it wise --and easy to disarm Americans.Maybe weneed revisit those days with Jacks and Jennies like Bateman standing in for the British tyrants?
Liberal Marxists are everywhere just like rats and cockroaches.
Show up at my house Lt Col, and this former Marine will take care of your problems if you try to take my weapon. The authorities may get it, but you and I will be lying dead along side each other - THIS IS MY PROMISE to this tyrannical government we have. We need a complete turnaround of D.C. Not to many deserve to be there right now, and most of them are on their first terms.
Not "former" Marine! Just a change in duty status. I am with you all the way, Marine! Idiots like this "doggie" need to spend more time learning how to be a real American patriot. I personally know many soldiers that will stand and fight if they have good cause and good leadership. What I think should happen is that all of the officers, like General Mattis, that were fired by the illegal alien in the White House, should be encouraged to complete their Oath and we stand behind them, locked and loaded, and tear Washington apart. If we work together like we did on active duty, we can't be stopped. Anything they use, we can adapt to, and overcome. That, Marine, is what "Gung-ho" really means! Semper Fi! GySgt Thomas Lakin, USMC Retired.
Never go on a march against the enemy with your weapons slung. When I was in Vietnam, most of our Marine infantry units took the slings off the rifle to make sure each Marine had his rifle in hand ready to fire. I think we could start with all of the military and American hunters living within a radius of 100 to 150 miles of DC to start the march. You are correct in that all the DC and park police together could not match the numbers that could show up. First house to be cleaned should be the White House, then Congress, then...Semper Fi! GySgt Thomas Lakin, USMC Retired
What is happenning in Afganistan, as the people prove that they can resist when the Russians tried to overcome them, can be multiplied by 100 as to what can occur in this country. The Japanese Admiral had it right when he stated that this wasn't the place to invade or conquer.
This about says it all, Johnny Lee Bullets First
I would like very much to know who and where this sob is. It sure would be fine if he were in Virginia.
I watched the whole time of the Russians in Afghanistan, praying we wouldn't follow, but knowing we were going to.
I took good notes on their tactics and training, and have gone over the dark side with regard to arms. They do believe in killing, and unlike what we were taught, they don't "take two to carry a wounded", they fight until the battle is over, and hope their wounded comrades survive.
Far too many jarheads and soldiers have died because they weren't focused on the battle, because of a wounded "buddy". We carry out our dead, and take care of our wounded, but we do have to take home some lessons from the Russians, we have far more in common with them than with any other nation. They've already learned the hardest way, about communism. They also recognize the assault is islam, and those folks are just waiting for the leftists to do the dirty work, and they will be lopped off with the rest, when they are no longer useful.
Semper Fidelis, John McClain
just know that he is one of the ones Obama has kept that says volumes in of it self with all the ones Obama has removed
One of my classes in Boot Camp in History & Traditions taught us that when we Marines are in the attack, we do not stop to help our buddies. That is what "Doc" is for. We were taught to keep fighting until we killed or captured the enemy, or they ran away. Our Drill Instructors taught us that, bottom line, a US Marine is an underpaid professional killing machine. Many army generals have been able to substantiate that: General John "Blackjack: Pershing said the most dangerous thing in the world is a US Marine and his rifle; The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight! [MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952; and, I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world! [Gen. Douglas MacArthur, USA; Korea, 21 September 1950]. There are many more, so, let the fun begin, even as old as I am, I can still put 10 out of 10 in the black at the 500 yard line.
As to this army officer that has been making statements against the Second Amendment, I wonder if he was paid under the table to do this? Maybe there is more to this then we are allowed to know.
Semper Fi! GySgt Thomas Lakin, USMC Retired
Perusing his writings he sounds like someone who wants to be a talking head and thinks no one can question his real life stupidity because he has paperwork to prove it he is booksmart. I wonder if Esquire would print an article from active duty or retired Infantrymen of any rank with the opposite opinion? Bet they would suddenly be relived/purged if they did though.