LT. COL. ROBERT BATEMAN, coming home to take on the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steve4102

New member
Anybody ever hear of this guy. Apparently he is some kinda mad at the NRA, the Tea Party and Gun Owners in general.

Says he's coming home to "Stop it".

This is too much. We have Tea Party political activists shooting cops from behind, in the head, then covering their dead bodies with the Tea Party “Gadsden” flag and shouting, “The Revolution begins now!”

No. I am coming home. I need to be there and be part of the solution. Moms Demand Action is getting some traction, but they can use the lean-in of a few U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Rangers. I am only sorry that I did not stand up to this threat to our nation before. I am sorry. I was busy.

I have been overseas in Afghanistan and in NATO nations for half a decade while the insanity of the National Rifle Association expanded and exploded, and the NRA became, essentially, the tool of death in the United States. They made mass killings normal.

Well done, NRA. But this **** is too much.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/i-am-coming-home
 
He's just another gun control nut, I don't care what title is in front of his name.

He says that 100,000 people a year are shot in the US. Even using numbers from LCPGV, he's more than 300% off.

His information on who those shooters are and what they support is incorrect and intentionally inflammatory and derogatory.

By all accounts, they were white-supremacist/racist, Nazi, anti-government, fringe self-proclaimed "militia" members whose only affiliation with the TEA Party (as Bateman claims) is that they used a Gadsden flag. Considering that the same snake is used on US Army Drill Sargent ID badges, maybe we should say they were part of the Army too? Same logic.
 
Read the article. Very unfortunate that those two nutjobs have been associated with Tea Party or open carry movements. Also unfortunate is the association of this blowhard Bateman with the US Army. Makes the Army look bad. My $.02.
 
wonder how many head wounds he suffered in his half a decade in Afghanistan and in NATO nations?

at the very least, he seems deficient in correct enemy identification...

judging from the quoted statements, at any rate..
 
To put it in some kind of perspective, you've got to realize that nearly any commissioned officer in the army can make lieutenant colonel if he keeps his nose clean and perseveres. Full colonels (O-6s) have to be of above average intelligence. I once had the misfortune to be "supervised" by the army's longest-serving lieutenant colonel. He was dumber than a post. :rolleyes:
 
I have little respect for his stance on the Second Amendment, but at first glance it does seem he served his country admirably. I suspect a lot of folks will listen to what he has to say. After all he’s a military guy, so he must be right when it comes to weapons.

We need to counteract these guys with our continued support of the NRA and calls/letters to politicians. Beyond that I’m not sure what else we can do.
 
Obviously there are other ways to rise in rank other than critical thinking, understanding the Constitution, or reading other sources than NYT. It is a shame when a man serves honorably in the country's military and then acts like an idiot toward civilians.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we've heard of Bateman

"...He isn’t so much an ideologue as he is an attention hound
who wants everyone to look at him even if you find him
grotesque. Rather than a stooge, he is like a misbehaving
child who throws tantrums in front of important people...."
The Captains Journel

Like someone else we are all aware of, he is an empty suit who will be used as a front man for a radical agenda.
Read up on him... especially the commentaries which follow his blog engagements.
 
Moms Demand Action is getting some traction, but they can use the lean-in of a few U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Rangers.
Click to expand...

Someone said it above, but this guy is going to suck at the teat of bloomberg.

I mean no attempt to belittle his service, but simply because he was a Ranger won't give him, or bloomberg, any more credibility. Even CNN refuted the Every Town / Moms / MAIG claims that there have been 75 school shootings since Sandy Hook.
 
“I, [name], 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; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If how he honors the oath he took is any indication of his military service I would say he is unfit to wear the uniform of the US military. One statistic I remember reading is that none of the mass shooters over the past 10 years were members of the NRA and just happened to be members of a particular political party. (Except for the Columbine shooters who were too young to be registered to vote but came from a family registered to that particular party)

Bateman points out in his perfect world the only guns that would be permitted would be “Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these” but I point out neither has any store been held up with an AR-15.

This man is not officer material and surely not a Patriot.
 
Just something I wrote a few years back.

I wrote the following a few years back on another site in response to some comments by another poster. One of the things in it that contradicts Col. Bateman is the National Guard is NOT the militia. Feel free to ust or any part of it in defending our Second Amendment rights.

OK, lets discuss the 2nd Amendment. Good idea. It is my carefully considered opinion that the KEY WORD is MILITIA.

1. The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The act stated:
"Every citizen...[shall] provide himself with a good musket, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints...."

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.

U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW (emphasis mine) to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipmemnt....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard."

Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the Untied States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.....

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)
(BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.)

More on Title 10 of the U.S. Code

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 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 302, 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 of the Naval Militia.

Now it took me all of about ten minutes to find all that information. Just go to the Gun Owners of America's website and look for their firearms fact sheet. There's 24 pages of good information there.

I plan on making copies of the above and sending each of my representatives their own personal copy. Feel free to do the same. Maybe, if they get flooded with as many letters with the above as Zumbo's sponsers did on his major foot in mouth problem, the idiots just might get a message. Leave our guns alone.
Paul B.
 
OK, lets discuss the 2nd Amendment. Good idea. It is my carefully considered opinion that the KEY WORD is MILITIA.
Click to expand...

OK, lets. My opinion is different than yours.

I agree, that in your argument that the National Guard is not the "militia" being referred to in the 2nd amendment. Entirely correct.

But I don't believe that the key word in the Second Amendment is MILITIA. Militia, being the key element is the assumption and the argument often used by the anti-gun bigots. Their argument is that the right to arms exists only for the militia.

Militia is in the prefacing clause of the 2nd A, it is there, explaining the reason for the primary clause.

For me, the KEY WORDS are the primary clause,
"the right of the people...shall not be infringed"

The Founders used "the people" many places in the Bill of Rights. I don't believe they meant for that term to have different meanings in each different Article. Currently our Supreme Court seems to agree with that, in general.

If you want to argue with the Lt Col. currently shooting off his mouth, about what the militia is, go ahead. But that's not the same argument as who has the right to arms, the people?, or only the militia?

I say, the people!
 
Being in the Army NG myself, I certainly don't think today's National Guard quite fits the description for the "militia" they describe in the 2nd amendment. It's just a reserve component of the Army and Air Force, and functions almost exactly the same as the reserves with the exception of its dual state/country obligation, as well as state funding, etc. I'm in the National Guard, but first and foremost I consider myself an Army Soldier, after all my uniform says "U.S. Army".

I don't think LT COL. Bateman will get very far with his apparent agenda anyways, I don't really care what title he has attached to his name either, he's just another anti.
 
This guy is one of those people that think their rank makes them superior to all us "lower class people" and it is going to help him make people obey him.
 
He may well be a guy near retirement from the military, sees a fair segment of people who appear somewhat vacuous and really leaderless and hopes to get out in front of them to "lead" them. And make money. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top