Lt. Col. Robert Bateman’s Response to A Patriot

David,

I read your article and the Esquire piece on Batemen and got furious. I wrote him and the banter is below.

I am waiting to reply to his arrogant response. I am thinking that waging war on law abiding US citizens is not treason? Did we not fight the Revolutionary war on the basic principles we are being subjected to today? Does he really think this Congress would declare a war given the track record of their reluctance to do so ever since Korea?

He is another hack trying to position himself for some cushy think tank or political job after he “retires”.

Doug

From: douugwrench
To: R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com

Re: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313

What do you not understand about the 2nd Amendment of my US Constitution? Did you not swear an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic? In my honest opinion, if you are not in the military for that reason, you are a traitor. Washington had men severely punished for lesser crimes than what you are proposing during the Revolutionary War. The Constitutional second amendment GUARANTEES me the right to defend myself and family against tyrants like you with a firearm. Owning firearms is not some privilege bestowed upon me from a king or dictator. It is a god-given right under natural law that it is my duty to protect my family and myself and if that means a firearm or pistol, so be it. Get it? You progressive f_cks think you got it all figured out. Let’s change the Constitution and it will all be fixed. Ha. Dream on dimwit.

Do you not understand the death and destruction that will lay in the wake of your confiscatory nonsense? All while you sip scotch in some back office while getting some grunt to polish your brass and shine your sorry assed shoes. The sheep are awakening to the wolves who are charged with keeping our us safe. You sir, are a disgrace.

BTW, in England,  murders by knives have risen sharply each year since the firearms ban. Did you conveniently forget that tidbit in your article? Same thing happening in Maryland everyday since that asshat governor banned guns. My wife now carries a knife and pepper spray to work. Have you heard of the knock out game? All because you have and want to take away the deterrent.  Great society you assholes have morphed us into.

So sit back in your office and type out some more horse sh_t and cruise into your well deserved pension.

Patriot III

 Bateman’s Response

From:Robert Bateman <r_bateman_ltc@hotmail.com>
To:Doug S <douugwrench

Fortunately for me, you do not get to define treason.  The Founding Fathers did that in the Constitution.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

Maybe you should read it sometime.

Bob Bateman

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Domestic Enemies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Lt. Col. Robert Bateman’s Response to A Patriot

  1. Bateman is a Left-of-Lenin liberal who was at the Pentagon the same time a Confederate patriot friend of mine retired from there as a LTC. His father was a general officer in WWII, but he got tired of the horrendous PC. Bateman hates Southerners, specially General Lee. Wish dueling was legal again, as I’ve said many times.

    • Z Magnus says:

      They always refer to the 1st part….>A well regulated militia<…They omit the 2nd part the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed<.

      These people use the same tactic all the time.. Omit anything that trumps their position… It is their way of bending minds to see things only one way…..

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels…..Hitlers Reich Minister of Propaganda

      • Yolanda says:

        Bob Bateman forgets to include state militias like the one in Virginia, which serves the Governor.

        Bateman is a fool who stuck his neck out on this one- it is just a matter of time until he gets a serious dose of brutally negative feedback and humility from Americans. The audacity of the man to think that 238 years of private firearms ownership history is somehow invalidated based on his “research”.

        My bet says he is about to get rotated out of the Army now that the wars are winding down and wants to start a business- he needs the PR from this overt rejection of his Oath of Allegiance to get free publicity and probably some Federal Contracts from his elitist buddies in the administration.

      • El Gato says:

        The second part is the operative part. “right of the people”. Not right of the state, or right of the militia. The militia and the people were thought of as almost the same thing. The militia was all people able to bear arms. But even if the first part was some kind of modifier or restriction on the militia power of Congress, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean what he thinks it does.

        The “well-regulated militia” part is explanatory at best. It contains no restriction on the government, which is what the bill of rights is about. The people in the second amendment are the same as those mentioned in the fourth amendment. Or would the Lt. Col. argue that the fourth amendment only applies to the members of the National Guard?

        I’ve been an active duty officer, a reserve officer, and and officer in the National Guard. The oath is the same in all three cases. Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

        Lt. Col. Bateman has outed himself as one of those domestic enemies.

        • fatman650 says:

          According to my reading of the history of the 2nd Amendment is that the original draft did not have the “well regulated militia” language. It was added later simply as a discription, hence the comma after it, of the federal interest in having well regulated militias in the various states which could be called up in case of a foreign invasion.

  2. Passionate Libertarian says:

    I think an easily arguable response to the idiotic Bateman’s retort would be that he easily meets the qualifications of treason by seeking to disarm the populace of the United States. In so doing, he would aid the enemies of the republic by removing the obstacle of an armed citizenry. Japan is widely regarded as saying that an attack on the American homeland would be impossible because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

  3. Steve says:

    I find it comical that the same guy who wants to strip rights guaranteed by the Constitution will use the very same Constitution as his defense. I.e. he wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens, but when confronted with the idea that his actions are treasonous, he says they’re not, because treason is clearly defined in the Constitution. People like him, who clearly cannot handle dissenting opinions, are the problem in this country.

    • He is a radical autonomist ie. radical liberal. People like him have been able to infiltrate our military. He is the product of the lowering of standards that has destroyed the greatest military on earth. It’s the same mentality that had one of our mine sweepers stuck on a reef in the Philippines and destroyed by an incompetent clown.

  4. Eddie says:

    His response on treason still applies to his circumstance. If he infringes upon the 2nd amendment or any part of the constitution then he IS waging war on the people. Therefore his argument as well as the generator are in agreement that his and anyone administering and or participating in such laws would be open to treason once war would be declared to enact such laws.

  5. f_ck no says:

    congress decide whos a traitor? novel idea being they are the biggest sellouts we have. cant wait to have you back in the states dont die till then please

    • El Gato says:

      No Congress doesn’t. The founders were themselves declared traitors to the crown, well before the shooting revolution began at Lexington and Concord. So they put the definition into the Constitution, so that some future Congress, or President, could not declare his political foes to be traitors, and punish them accordingly.

      We can’t punish Lt. Col Bateman for his misuse of the First Amendment, but we can expose his lies and debunk his non-historical “reading” of the second amendment.

  6. Bateman’s response is arrogant and all he really does is tell you the process of treason. Not what treason really is. He is in a country where he does have freedom of speech to spout stupid ideas and opinions. What he is forgetting is that he swore an oath to ‘Support and Defend’ the constitution of the United States of America. By supporting any type of gun control or confiscation, he is in violation of his oath and there for a traitor or treasonous actions… See, when you swear that oath -- there is no time frame on it…. 8o) You can’t just chuck it when you get out of the military. So, in reality, he is an oath breaker… There are a LOT more of us, then there are of them -- a fact they conveniently seem to forget or to blind to see. I spent over 10 years in the military, half in Special Ops. Even though I have been out, I am oath bound to protect myself, my family, and my country for all enemy’s foreign and domestic. All evidence, all statistics, all history shows -- GUN CONTROL AND CONFISCATION has never worked, will never work -- AND ALWAYS proceeds tyranny! @Bateman -- FU -- FO -- ABM /// your hands will be cold before mine will as you have just made MILLIONS of enemy’s!

    Those who are the enemys of freedom:
    -- Are rich and hire others to do their dirty work so there for have very little war like skills
    -- Are bully’s and like all people of this nature are self defeating, blind, and prone to mistakes made out of anger.
    -- Are lazy and have the ‘what is in it for me’ syndrome
    -- Those who follow blindly but eventually wake up, assist the other side, or remove their superiors.

    This is why evil has always lost in the end. Will always lose in the end. They turn on themselves….

  7. Guillermo says:

    Interesting how this military brass/bureacrat thinks so differently from those who are on the front lines…most military peeps I know avidly support the individual rights interpretation of Second Amendment. Maybe Bateman’s guilt really stems from being a high paid orchestrator who nonetheless prefers to be “in the rear, with the gear.”

    • El Gato says:

      It’s not “an interpretation”. The second amendment clearly states “the right of THE PEOPLE” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s a right of the people, and not just a right of the militia, whoever they might be and whether they are well regulated or not. Congress can define who the militia is, and they have, even though it’s a much larger group than Bateman indicates.

  8. YourInMySights says:

    It says it right there…..“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    YOU SIR ARE LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM. Them being the people of the united states. You SIR are a traitor. The fact you actually said what you first said then tried to back it up with a poor interpretation of the Constitution.
    Also….by even attempting to change the constitution you are “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    When you lovers of the illegal Kenyan in office finally try to make your final move, you will only find that a rope on the gallows has your name on it.

    Molon Labe!!!!!

  9. mark says:

    Anybody seen a picture of this a-hole. He is soft, fat, and pink. I don’t think he will be a problem!

  10. Jane Dempsey says:

    When these ass clowns come a knocking we had best be ready for them. Keep your arms loaded and ready and be ready to use them. Body armor: CHECK, AK47: CHECK, Magazines loaded: CHECK, Night Vision Ready: CHECK.
    LOCK AND LOAD: CHECK!

    • fatman650 says:

      Jane, just remember when it happens it will happen overnight, one morning we’re going to wake up and wonder why there are no radio or TV stations broadcasting and why are there roadblocks at all the major intersections and why are soldiers driving around in MRAP’s telling everyone to stay indoors. That is how it will happen so be ready because all of us are going to have to anticipate when it will happen and get out of the city and into the country. At that point though, they will begin blocking off particular neighborhoods and go door to door to physically confiscate our weapons. I only say this because I think the time is coming very soon and it will behoove all of us patriots to anticipate these actions and get out of town and out to the country with all of our gear before they can restrict any of our movements. I simply cannot believe that we’ve gotten to the point here in the US that we have to be talking and making plans for this stuff.

  11. cnelson says:

    I found this page searching this a$$es name. I emailed this to him:

    Robert,

    It is your God given right to write your article and voice your opinions in Esquire and is protected under the first amendment. The second amendment to the United States Constitution is not difficult to understand. It is not a privilege given by authority of any government or person. It is my God given protected right to have a firearm as I have a right to protect myself, my family, and my state / country if needed and not just for hunting or displaying. When you became an “officer” in the US Army, did you even take the Oath of Commissioned Officers? That oath is as follows:

    “I, (YOUR NAME), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; so help me God.” [Emphasis added]

    By what you swore to uphold (US Constitution) and the ideals that you hold (anti 2nd amendment), you are a treasonous, hypocritical officer in the military. By your words, you have waged war on the Constitution which you swore to defend. The Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” [Emphasis added]

    By that definition, you could be convicted for treason as your article in Esquire is an attack on the US Constitution and the People. And, don’t worry, I am sure more than two witnesses have viewed your article. You do not deserve to command, nor even be in the military if you don’t believe in the ideals that our forefathers wrote in the Constitution. On behalf of several true Americans, we request you resign your commission as you think the Constitution isn’t anything import to uphold. You don’t even exhibit the core values of the Army by evidence of your views in your article:

    Loyalty-that can’t count as you want to destroy the Constitution and the 2nd amendment;
    Respect-obviously you don’t respect the American People as you want to limit their God given right to protect themselves and again destroy the Constitution; Honor-who can be considered honorable that want to destroy the documents that founded our country;
    Integrity-how can you do what’s right when you said in your article: “2. We will pry your gun from you cold, dead, fingers.” That statement show’s to me and many others you are willing to go as far as murder and genocide to get your way. That is declaring war upon America and is TREASON!

    I know I wouldn’t trust you in any command that you would undertake by your statements whether military or if you sought public office. Under your rule, you would likely usurp the Constitution and most probably the Declaration of Independence.

    • & the useful idiot thinks Lee was a traitor.

    • fatman650 says:

      CNelson, don’t worry if this bum ever got a combat command he would probably get fragged rather quickly. I understand that he is not a combat officer although he has served in combat areas but I am told he has never been in the thick of it, rather he is always back at the HQ staying safe as a staff puke. Don’t know if that is actually true or not but I read it on another blog so if anyone knows how to research military service records or if anyone here is in the military can back this info up it would be appreciated.

  12. Big Jim says:

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Let’s party Bateman

  13. jerry snyder says:

    If this Dickhead is retired and was a LTC at the pentagon he must have screwed the pooch or he would have been promoted. He probably lives in England because if he were here the no good REMF would probably be fragged. He is a worthless fat traitor.

  14. Pingback: LTC Bob Bateman, Oathbreaker | S/V Danneskjöld

  15. badassdonkey says:

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/12/current-serving-army-ltc-and-small-wars.html
    This is the real writer douche bag Bateman, NOT the one circulating around the net…

  16. Michael Hutton says:

    Letter to Lt. Col. Robert Bateman:
    LTC Bateman,

    I have just read a piece that is purported to have been written by you regarding the matter of the 2nd Amendment and Gun Ownership at http://www.Esquire.com titled, “It’s Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Court”,By Lt. Col. Robert Bateman on December 3, 2013. If this piece was not in fact written by you then we need to take Esquire to task for this report.
    You start your piece on the justification for taking away the rights of law abiding citizens with a story of a woman who killed her sister over a football game. So essentially you’re declaring that gun ownership should be curtailed because of the actions of a crazy woman. Then you go on to illustrate that the rate of gun violence in Britain is far less than that of the United States but you fail to note the statistic of the numbers of people who’s lives are saved every year in the United States because of legal gun ownership.
    ‘Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. ’
    From: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

    The population of Britain is about 63 million people. The population of the US is about 314 million. That is 5 times the population of Britain. But the numbers of lives saved by legal gun owners in the US says that if the Brits were armed they could effectively wipe out gun deaths in their country. Your logic is flawed and your perspective is slanted. The United States and Britain are not the same culturally and your implication that the numbers of guns in the United States is the reason for the increased number of gun deaths is just as flawed in that regard.
    You then go on to say that you are embarrassed by our Supreme Court. If you are embarrassed by the Supreme Court then I think you should stay in Britain. You say the Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be the ‘wisest among us’… and here again your perspective and your understanding are flawed. The Justices of the Supreme Court are to interpret the Constitution not legislate by their ‘wisdom’ from the bench. You obviously do not understand the Constitution nor our system of Government and as such I think it is impossible for you to actually uphold the oath you took to defend it. You say that the Supreme Court Justices have been ‘failing us’ and while that may be indeed true, it is a matter of debate. You on the other hand, by your failure to understand the Constitution and subsequently the role that the Supreme Court Justices are charged with are certain to be failing us as is evidenced by your opinion in this piece.
    Next you claim that the Justices ‘flunked basic high school history’ because they interpreted the 2nd Amendment to imply that the People do in fact have a right to bear arms in the effort to form a well regulated militia and for justification you cite the Militia Act which was passed in 1903 by Congress and you state this Act of Congress was passed because of reasons expressed in your convoluted perspective on issues in the Spanish American War and the Civil War. Here again your understanding of our system of Government and the Constitution is overwhelming failing. Perhaps you need to not worry about history and actually study the Constitution that you swore to uphold. The Acts of Congress do not supercede the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is not rewritten by the Militia Act of 1903. Congress at times passes laws that are deemed to be Un-Constitutional and they are then overturned by the Supreme Court. Whatever the status is of the Militia Act of 1903 it does not trump the 2nd Amendment. Since you are such an expert with history perhaps you’re aware of the following:

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
    Richard Henry Lee
    writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

    “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
    Zachariah Johnson
    Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

    “… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
    Philadelphia Federal Gazette
    June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
    Article on the Bill of Rights
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington
    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry
    What’s clear here from these words of the Founders is this, the explicit purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the People with a means of defense against all enemies foreign and domestic and indeed that includes any tyranny that might develop in the Federal Government of which the National Guard is a part. The National Guard is NOT the Militia no matter what the Militia Act of 1903 declares and your willingness to subvert the Constitution through an interpretation by Congress once again demonstrates your ineptitude at interpreting the Constitution that you swore and oath to uphold.
    The rest of your piece is nothing but tripe spoken by a man who fails entirely to understand the Constitution and the Principles of the Government that he intends to defend. You sir are a disgrace to the uniform you wear and effectively a traitor to your country. I demand that you provide me with the name of your commanding officer as I will be notifying them of your woeful lack of understanding of the Constitution thus invalidating the oath that you swore and your capacity at upholding it.

    • Ikaros3 says:

      Michael Hutton:

      I have just finished reading your rebuttal to Lt. Col Bateman. I want to tell you how much I appreciated your clearly written and thought-provoking post.

      While much has been written on this topic, your wording expresses the most important aspects of the 2nd Ammendment and it’s history, without taking a big emotional stance on the issue.

      Thank you for your thorough research and clear, concise writing, inwhich you completely covered all the bases.

      About the only the only thing I could possibly add is, “Lt. Col. Bateman, GFY!”

  17. Daniel says:

    It’s really pretty simple, isn’t it?
    “No government will long endure limitations to its power if the people are not willing to assert their rights.” Daniel Hofford

  18. James Chant says:

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

    LOL! Be sure to mention this to the patriots who finally dig you out of the hole you’re hiding in, as they drag your sorry ass over to the nearest street lamp to hang you for treason.

    I’m sure they’ll stop and call congress to ask their advice… oh, wait! Congress will also probably be swinging from lamp posts for the same reason too.

    Gee… sucks to be you.

    You have to be a total moron not to realize that in a civil war situation, what is “treason” will be defined by the winners. You have to be an extra special moron not to realize that the gun owners in American make up the largest armed force the world as EVER seen. Doesn’t matter what technology you have, you are still vastly and overwhelmingly out numbered. Now add in… how many of the Oathkeepers inside the military will just switch sides, taking all their gear and equipment with them. All the tech in the world won’t help you without enough people to use it.

    It would be best for you to retire and leave the country before the SHTF. Your arrogant words have now make you a marked man… regardless if you follow through with them or not. Leave now… and you just might die of old age in some third world country, instead of swinging on the end of a rope as a traitor.

    God knows you don’t deserve to stay in America anymore.

  19. Amy Danette says:

    By pursuing his political mission to basically nullify the Second Amendment, he is most certainly in violation of 18 US Code 2384, 2385, 2387, and 2390 as a commissioned US. Army officer, sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution. If any one of his superiors had a mind to do it, he could be brought up on charges for any one, or all of these. I suggest we, as veterans, taxpayers, Oathkeepers, start making some calls and writing some letters/emails to his chain of command, his Congressional representative and his Senators to have him removed from service IMMEDIATELY.

  20. Jeff Lines says:

    I had entered a longer reply, but got a timeout message. Basically, what I don’t understand is why this person is not being prosecuted and dishonorably discharged under the UCMJ if he is still active duty military. Since the blog does not indicate he is retired, I have to assume he is active duty. Let me summarize what I tried to say earlier. There are multiple sections of the UCMJ that are violated. The Esquire blog this shows up under is clearly titled The Politics Bog. In that the piece says by “LT COL”, it amounts to the same thing as showing up to a political event in uniform. In addition, he is questioning the constitution that he has taken an oath to defend and has essentially said he would gladly kill law American citizens in order to take their guns away from them. Since he is an officer, it could be viewed that he has influence on other members of the military and is therefore encouraging other military members to dishonor their vow to defend the constitution. And finally, as has been previously stated “conduct unbecoming of an officer”.

    • fatman650 says:

      “what I don’t understand is why this person is not being prosecuted and dishonorably discharged under the UCMJ if he is still active duty military”

      The answer is really quite simple; many senior military leaders (Flag Officers) are progressives also, and they agree with him and then there are others that know this is what obama believes and because they’re more worried about their next promotion they will go along with it. It seems our senior military leadership is riddled with careerists and is seriously devoid of moral courage and principle.

      What is now coming to it’s zenith is the purge of senior military leadership that Obama’s cabal of tyrants considered politically unreliable, to wit, they would be true to their Constitutional oath. These officers are being replaced with officers known or thought by the Obama cabal, to be fellow revolutionary progressive travelers. And make no mistake about it, they will shortly start purging the lower officer corps and the enlisted ranks also, if they haven’t started that process already.

  21. Ben Johnson says:

    Robert Bateman is a cowardly puke of an excuse for a military person. Tell you what you Hitler wanna be, come try to disarm us. You are the very type of solicalist tyrant that our founding fathers fought against and gave us the 2nd Admendment to protect against. Want our guns boy? Instead of being in the rear with the gear, muster some spine punk, and YOU try to come take them instead of hiding behind the real men and women who serve our country. You, Robert Bateman, are a gutless wonder of the first order and belong with the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and any other tyrannical dictator that ever existed. I’ll pry the gun out of your dead hand if you could ever muster the stones to fight yourself, instead of hiding behind the skirts of your rank. What a coward!

  22. Ryan Sexton says:

    LTC Bateman,

    Re: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313

    USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 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.
    USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 312 -- Militia duty: exemptions

    (a)The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
    (1)The Vice President.
    (2)The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
    (3)Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
    (4)Customhouse clerks.
    (5)Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
    (6)Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
    (7)Pilots on navigable waters.
    (8)Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b)A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 331
    Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 332
    Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 333
    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

    (1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

    (2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

    In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 334
    Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 375

    The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

    USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 378
    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1, 1981.

    A Well Regulated Militia
    “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
    to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
    And their safety and interest require that they should
    promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
    independent on others, for essential,
    particularly for military supplies.”
    —George Washington

    First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

    The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1630. Over 5,000 men, women, and children made the two-month voyage to the New World, leaving the relative comfort and safety of England behind in an effort to break free of religious intolerance, and to manage their communities the way they saw fit. In doing so, their actions tread new ground in the country that would become the United States of America. On13 December 13, 1636, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed.

    Self-sufficiency proved instrumental. In a new land, hiring mercenary fighters in the European tradition to ward off Indian attacks would be impossible. For one thing, the colonists had no money. Other foreign interests in the New World such as the French or Spanish, even if they were available for defensive purposes, did not share English views on religion and political matters. They would have seriously undermined the stability of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Governing and policing the settlement would have to be left to the colonists themselves. Therefore, the militia system of self-defense brought from England had the best chance of succeeding for the colonists. Soon after the establishment of the militia in Massachusetts, the entire New England region defended itself against the aggression of the Pequot nation. Other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island mustered militia units to fight the Indian tribe, and succeeded in forcing the Pequots to capitulate in 1638. Ultimately, the militia enlisted from the many small villages proved a strong component in building confidence for the settlement as a whole.

    During the Revolution the Continental Congress recognized the importance of having a body of men to reinforce the Continental, or Regular, Army and on July 18, 1775, recommended “that all able-bodied, effective men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into companies of militia.” They could be called out only with the consent of the State legislatures.

    The Constitutional Convention open on 25 May 1787, at a time when informed opinion identified three threats to national security: civil insurrections like the one that had occurred in western Massachusetts during the previous year, Indian attacks aided and abetted by the British on the frontier, and, more remotely, invasion by European powers. The delegates in Philadelphia set about providing the new national government with means to face these three possible threats. The delegates had to consider two different approaches to the development of military forces. One, reflecting the experiences of the Continental Army, held that the nation needed a trained, full-time military force capable of defeating an organized enemy on the battlefield; the other emphasized the traditional role of the citizen-soldier militiaman defending his home and region during short-lived emergencies. Seeking as broad a consensus as possible, the Convention chose to employ elements of both. Even Elbridge Gerry, probably the most extreme ant centralist in attendance, did not object to the premise that the central government could establish a small peacetime military force. On 18 August 1787 the discussion shifted to the “Militia Clause” a much more emotional issue. In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers.

    Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of “militia clauses,” vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States. Article I, Section 8; Clause 16 gives Congress the power “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.” That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

    A majority decided on 28 September 1787 to forward it to the states for ratification. The opponents, who came to be called the Ant federalists, tended to be inherently suspicious of any concentration of power. They feared a stronger national government because it was further removed from the people than the state governments and because of the potential they saw for abuse of power. Following the same logic, the Ant federalists also opposed the creation of a peacetime army and sought to limit the nation’s military to the existing state-controlled militias. Their arguments were couched in terms used a century earlier in England against the Stuarts and in the American Revolutionary era against Parliament. The last two states to ratify followed much later. North Carolina approved on 21 November 1789 after the First Congress had already introduced a bill of rights. Rhode Island, finally accepted the federal system on 29 May 1790.

    Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this. The first 10 Amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, “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.”
    The Second Amendment reference was quite specific: “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.” Eighteenth-century Americans understood the precise meaning of those few words and tied them directly to the basic militia clause in Article I of the Constitution. Creating a “well regulated” militia -- that is, one with adequate organization, weapons, and training, uniform across the nation -- ensured that, when mobilized, the militiamen could effectively carry out combat functions. This point had been fully articulated during the drafting of Article I. Mason and other advocates of the Second Amendment knew that during the last years of the Revolution many militia units had virtually disintegrated because they lacked sufficient arms. The amendment reinforced the original militia clause by stating this fact explicitly.

    The Militia Act of 08 May 1792 expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures. In those earlier days reliance for national defense was placed on the citizen soldier but without adequate provision being made for his training or equipment.
    The Militia Act of 1792 attempted to give additional clarification to the requirements and expectations of the militia:

    “to enroll …every freeable-bodied white male citizen … and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack…”

    Elbridge Gerry’s fear of militia neglect came to fruition within a generation at the outset of the War of 1812 when the various state militias performed in a manner ranging from ill-disciplined and near mutinous to well organized and heroic. Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans on January 8, 1815 confirmed what Americans wanted to believe, namely, that the nation could draw together a fighting force at the moment of need, not before, without elaborate and expensive pre-planning of a regular army and dependent upon the citizen soldier.
    For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. Concern over the militia’s new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York’s example. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force. Between 1903 and the 1920’s, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force.

    The US Supreme Court decided [5 to 4] June 26, 2008 in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms … The Ant federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved…”

    Heller was wrongly decided. Writing in dissent, Justice Stevens said that “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution…

    “In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law. Sustaining an indictment under the Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller — that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
    No new evidence has surfaced…. supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

    Support of any action that infringes on constitutionally protected rights is punishable under Title 18 U.S.C., Section 241.

    From Norton Vs Shelby county: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    I am not of the mind to give up any of my freedoms afforded to me by the Constitution. Others may choose to, that is fine. But they must realize that they have that ability because there are good people with guns ready to do whatever is necessary to protect their rights whether they agree with it or not. That is true love and true patriotism. If there were not a long line of like minded people standing at the ready, I fear that many people would not have the ability to publicly profess their beliefs in the manner in which we do today. That to me is sad. As they say a freedom not exercised, is a freedom lost.

    Banning guns will never solve the issue. There will never be any ‘gun buyback schemes” that will work. Criminals will never give them up willfully. There is only one thing these predators understand and that is power. I believe that we should give good honest law abiding people whatever tools necessary to defend their own lives and those of their families and loved ones.

    “Gun free zones” must be abolished as they are a safe haven for predators to carry out their atrocious acts unchallenged.

    Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous.

    They are one in the same, because the militia was and is made up of ALL able bodied men. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore the 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going.

    As far as “assault weapons” are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period.

    An assault rifle has three distinct characteristics according to the United States military.
    1. The firearm must be chambered to an intermediate cartridge.
    2. The firearm must have a detachable box magazine.
    3. The firearm must be capable of selective fire.

    It must have all three to be an Assault Weapon and #3 is already an NFA item.

    The United States of America is the greatest military power in the world. Our military capabilities far surpass those of any other nation on earth. The reality is: Take just two states of the union for this example we’ll choose Pennsylvania & Michigan; If only the portion of Michigan & Pennsylvania’s population which had hunting licenses took up arms which is roughly 1,005,000 & 1,299,372 people (total 2,304,372), you would have the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD by over nearly 1 million bodies. That doesn’t include non-hunters who are armed, sport & competitive shooters, recreational shooters prior military and law enforcement in those states. Add people the other states and the number grows to nearly incomprehensible size.

    This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equally armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.

    The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it. Back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one’s family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn’t. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.

    The moral of the story here is:

    We the People have loaned out power to you, the Government and ultimately have the ability to govern the Government through the constitutionally protected democratic process.

    Federal Statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502
    Enlistment oath:

    “I, (YOUR NAME HERE), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    See the Order?

    0. solemnly swear(to God)
    1. support and defend the Constitution
    2. bear true faith and allegiance to the (same) Constitution
    3. orders of the President of the United States
    4. orders of the officers appointed over me
    5. regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
    6. So help me God

    As long as 3, 4 or 5 do not contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.

    Declaration of Orders I Will NOT Obey because they contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.

    Recognizing that I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that I am a guardian of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, I affirm and declare the following:

    1. I will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

    2. I will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

    3. I will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

    4. I will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

    5. I will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

    6. I will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

    7. I will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

    8. I will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. I will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

    9. I will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

    10. I will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241
    Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means.

    Your article disgusts me; your intent and opinion are in direct violation of your oath and duties.
    Do this country a favor and resign your commission Sir.

    Sincerely,
    SSG Ryan Sexton
    United States Army

  23. I am a witness to the “Treason” of Robert Bateman, I will not refer to him as Colonel, for it is a title he neither deserves, nor has he earned, but rather, has abrogated by his Treasonous acts. The act of declaring that American citizens should be denied the Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms, is conciliatory to an act of war against the American people. For it is only by disarming them, that they can be defeated militarily. The 2nd Amendment is not designed to establish Militias, but is conducive to the ability to create militias by allowing the citizenry itself to be armed and prepared to fill the need for militias when and where they may arise. There is no ability to readily form a militia, that is capable of defending the territory for which it is organized to defend, if that militia must take much time to ready itself for that defense, by learning the complexity of the weapons they may be provided, to disassemble and maintain them, whereas if they are allowed to be armed, they already have weapons they are familiar with in their use and maintenance. Also, how would it be possible for a militia to be adequately supplied with weaponry, if the enemy is the state which is suppose to supply those weapons? That is the main and enduring reason for the 2nd Amendment, to ensure that the people are not compelled to rely upon a government that may or may not supply them the weaponry necessary to defend themselves, against the most feared enemy of all, the Tyrant they believe to be their ally.

    Again, I state, I am a witness to the Treason of Robert Bateman, is there one other person who will join me in witnessing to his Treason, and seek his prosecution, under the Constitution of the United States.

    Mike B. Martisko, American

  24. FormerNonComm says:

    Just another “0” (yes, I meant zero) trying to think he’s a hero. Sad that this pogue actually commanded troops. Probably only did it to “fill the block” for his next promotion.

  25. tommcclary says:

    I can’t believe what this country has come to. I served with this moron in Hawaii and he was an arrogant s o b then. The entire company knew he was a worthless weasel when in training we got attacked he took his r t o and ran away,great infantry leader. Everyone knew he was an ass and the great US ARMY has this bozo 2 promotions from being a general I hope he is out before that happens because with leader’s like him who needs enemies.

  26. greg canty says:

    What needs to be done, if only to rebut the leftist gun grabbers, is a study, (very difficult to achieve), on how the crime rate was effected by the banning of private firearm ownership in places like Communist China, Communist North Korea, Communist East Germany, Communist Cuba, Communist Soviet Union, Communist Vietnam….hmmmm. The word “Communist” keeps coming up. Do ya think there’s a connection between these place and our liberal friends?

  27. Bob Evers says:

    A commentary published on 8/5/12
    Does the Second Amendment promote mass murder?
    The Second Amendment for the Constitution of the United States does not say that you have the right to bear arms. What the Second Amendment clearly states (although it is seldom mentioned) is the 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.” In other words, that “right” is meant to sustain a Militia (National Guard, Reserves?)
    “To infringe” means to break in, encroach or trespass (on or upon the rights, patents, etc. of others) [Webster’s Dictionary]. Now ask yourself, does “regulate” constitute “infringement?” According to Webster’s “to regulate” means to control, direct, or govern according to a rule (a law?), principle (freedom?), or system (our form of government?).” After all, the Second Amendment speaks of a “well regulated militia.”
    And does your “right to bear and keep arms,” interfere with the rights of the rest of us? And does it include all arms? How about an anti-aircraft battery? An A-Bomb with matching B-52? An Abrams MBT in your garage? The First Amendment guarantees “the right of free speech,” but anyone with a gun can intimidate you into keeping your mouth shut. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people (that’s us), to “be secure in their persons …” But anyone with a gun can take that right away. The 14th Amendment guarantees that the “rights of citizens shall not be abridged.” But by insisting that only the Second Amendment is valid and inviolate, the opponents of reasonable (or any) gun control laws, are denying all of us the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States.
    How many more massacres have to happen? Every time a massacre happens we’re all upset for a few days, maybe weeks, but that’s all. We do nothing to prevent the next one. We hardly respond at all to more than 18,000 annual “single” handgun murders. Because the National Rifle Association (NRA) which is in the pay of the weapons manufacturers have a strangle hold on the local, State and Federal legislatures. Basil Zaharoff and his co-merchants of death in the early part of he 20th Century seem to have been replaced by the NRA and its spokespersons. Here is a abbreviated list of massacres in the U.S. Our spineless legislatures are directly responsible for these deaths:
    August 1966: A man (I will not stroke their egos by naming them) kills 15 and wounds 32 from a clock tower in Austin, TX; February 1983: three men killed 14 people in Seattle; July, 1984: 21 people are killed in a San Diego McDonald’s; August 1986: A former postal employee kills 14 in Oklahoma (giving birth to the “jokes” about “going postal”); October 1991: Another madman kills 23 in Killeen, TX; April 1999: Columbine H.S., 12 dead; March 2005: Seven killed in Red Lake H.S., MN; April 2007: 32 killed and numerous wounded at Virginia Tech; December 2007: 8 killed and 5 wounded in Omaha shopping mall; December 2008: “Santa Claus” kills 9 in a L.A. suburb; March 2009: Another madman kills 10 in Alabama; January 2011: Tragedy in Tucson; 7/17/12: 17 people shot in Tuscaloosa and most recently the carnage in Aurora, CO. When will we put a stop to this insanity?
    The “right to bear arms” will not be infringed by reasonable regulations. If you want to drive a car (potentially a deadly weapon) you must pass a test to obtain your license to drive. And you must carry insurance to cover damage to others. The same for an airplane, a motor cycle, etc. But any nut can “keep and bear arms,” without restrictions.
    Although I am sure that others can come up with better suggestions, here are some suggestions I would like to be considered. Reasonable regulation could include: A background check before purchasing a firearm. You must be at least 18 years old and you must either be active, or retired military and/or must have completed a gun safety course from the Isaac Walton League, or some other organization promoting gun safety and responsible hunting.
    Unless you can prove you are a serious and recognized collector, you can only purchase bolt-action rifles, or rifles with a (single shot) five-round magazine. The same regulations for shotguns, either single shot (break-away) or a limited magazine (pump guns). Handguns must either be revolvers (6-8 rounds) or pistols with a maximum magazine capacity of ten rounds. Only the military, law-enforcement personnel, serious, licensed collectors, or certified dealers may handle automatic rifles, assault weapons, bazookas, machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction. Ammunition can only be purchased in limited quantities (100 rounds at a time?) Larger quantities can only be purchased (and expended) at recognized, licensed shooting ranges. Dealers are required to report excessive, frequent purchases of ammunition.
    Perhaps you do not agree with these suggestions. In that case, please ask yourself some of the following questions: Do you feel safe, knowing that any nut can buy any weapon, can buy unlimited ammunition and go on a rampage whenever he/she feels like it? Do you need an assault weapon? How about more than one? What are you hunting that requires an assault weapon? What are you hunting that requires a +20 magazine in your pistol? Have you had basic firearms safety instructions? If you walk around in public with a weapon on your hip, what are you afraid of? What are you trying to prove? Your paranoia? Or your masculinity?
    You may consider me an exception, but I have never felt unsafe, or in need of protection, anywhere in the United States. And I lived in rural and urban areas all over this Country. I only “owned” a weapon when I was in the Army, but after my (honorable) discharge (I was drafted), I never felt the need to own, or carry a weapon. And I have never needed it. But I’m also not a hunter.
    And for those of you who want to turn back the clock back and return to “the days of our Founding Fathers,” I would like to remind you that the Founding Fathers only “guaranteed” you the right to keep and bear flintlocks, muzzle loaders and single shot handguns.

    *****

  28. Tommy Murley says:

    Bob Evers. The same old drivel. I thought we got rid of pierce mogan.Since all the legal/philosophical arguments have been thoroughly covered (you lost) lets just get down to brass tax it’s not feasible, it’s illogical, it’s impossible to disarm America. Freedom is worth dying for to people like me and you would be astounded how many we are. We’re mostly the quiet ones who mind our own business and don’t go about imposing our will on our fellow citizens. Do you like Republicans, I’m not wealthy enough to like them but I’m forced to vote for them because at least they leave me a last resort. Anti gunners are like the greatest gift to those greedy hypocrites but I think the Commie Dems have even caught on to that. Do you feel intimidated? Get yourself a gun put it under the bed you’ll be amazed how much better you’ll sleep.

Comments are closed.