David Codrea Response To Robert Bateman On The Militia
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 10 months ago
LTC Robert Bateman presumes to lecture us on the militia and the Constitution, choosing Esquire Magazine as his forum so that, near as I can figure, we can also educate ourselves on the latest fashion tips for men, join in “progressive” attacks on conservatives, and catch up on all-important information about pop star Prince and his surprise concert tour. Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.
[ … ]
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 dismissed that, claiming, “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”
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.”
There’s more. Make sure you read David’s analysis. We’ve run into Bateman before on issues of concealed (or open) carry, the offense he takes at seeing someone who carries, and his idiotic proposals for national gun control. Finally, we’ve caught him lying about gun control during Operation Iraqi Freedom when my son explained what really happened there (I suppose Bateman didn’t believe anyone who was there would jump into the conversation to call him out).
Bateman has a long history of telling you he is good at everything and that he is a scholar and historian and that he’s special. But Bateman fails miserably on what constitutes the militia, and David provides him a bit of teaching. To see just how badly David spanks him, read David’s piece, which is both educated and educational.
|
|
On February 27, 2016 at 11:05 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Ever since your son, Daniel, fisked Bateman back two or so years ago for Capitain’s Journal, I sincerely hope this idiot would shut up and go away. Instead, he continues to double-down on stupid, even now going full retard. I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t know by now that the United States Code makes a clear distinction between the unorganized Militia and the National Guard.
Bateman – seriously – STFU. This guy is really an authority on being an authority.
The fact that the idiots publishing Esquire would publish that sort of tripe without fact-checking is, I suppose, understandable for a magazine for giving fashion tips to Metrosexuals. That is – a magazine not to be take seriously.
Perhaps it will go the way of the Grey Lady as well.
On February 28, 2016 at 1:26 am, rumcrookâ„¢ said:
They published without fact checking? You miss the point, they don’t care about facts, what they saw was well crafted propaganda to advance thier agenda to chip away at the 2nd amendment. It’s billed as plausible and by an “expert” and that is the agenda
On February 29, 2016 at 9:32 am, Ned Weatherby said:
So -my stating the fact that Esquire publishing without fact-checking is understandable, and a magazine not to be taken seriously, equals my missing the point. OK then…
On February 29, 2016 at 8:15 pm, rumcrookâ„¢ said:
No offense ned, I’m not picking a fight with you, but I read what you wrote, and I don’t beleive they missed fact checking becuase they are vacuous metrosexuals, they didnt fact check becuase they don’t care what the facts are. The facts are what they want them to be, they are propaganda pushers for the greater collectivist agenda and what I read out of your comment was they are silly and didnt fact check becuase they are unprofessional light wieghts in journalism and not to be taken seriously as the reason for thier failings. As opposed to my contention that they knew exactly what fact checking would find, but don’t care.
On February 27, 2016 at 3:03 pm, Pat Hines said:
Apparently Bateman doesn’t even know much about Shays’ Rebellion, a historical event he uses in his latest embarrassment. Shays’ Rebellion, poorly funded and equipped, was put down by a 3,000 man private militia funded by about 125+ wealthy men from large eastern towns in Massachusetts, and given weapons from a US government armory in Springfield which were not authorized to be handed out to anyone.
This information is freely available, but the LTC (ret) couldn’t bother to look it up. By the way, I’m a retired CPT and my wife is a LTC (ret) too. Bateman does not impress me, in any way. In fact, he casts serious doubt upon his credentials as an expert on anything.
On February 27, 2016 at 4:16 pm, Fred said:
“Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”
Well, I completely agree, and since I swore an oath before Almighty God to uphold the constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic, I would ask the gentleman; which are you? I’m feeling somewhat un-“well regulated” I must admit. More training is therefore in order and since I’m no longer active duty I fall outside of being “disciplined by the congress” and revert back to the standing militia. Furthermore, my oath was not temporary, so I would ask the colonel again; which are you?
From your for bearers; “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…”
*Well Regulated = Trained and equipped – Since I may be needed to honor my oath at a moments notice.
*organized armed and disciplined = in service – well, thanks for the training and the free housing was a plus.
Hey Colonel pinhead, the word “Part” is capitalized??? That, is in the original. My oh my, if only I knew English I would understand which “Part” of the militia I am in right now. Anything else I can help the FORMER soldier with?
On February 27, 2016 at 5:34 pm, Haywood Jablome said:
Bateman is an idiot. Period.
On February 27, 2016 at 8:40 pm, Josh said:
Robert Bateman is waste. His life’s work is refuse. He is a sad man with a hungry ego, and he lacks the plain discipline to temper it.
His opinions are drivel. Vanity is his vice. He puts the ‘quasi’ in ‘intellectual.’
Robert Bateman is a joke of a human, and history will utterly forget him.
On February 28, 2016 at 6:15 am, UNCLEELMO said:
I have a relative (USMC-retired) who may know him. Unfortunately I don’t see him often, but when I do you can bet I’ll be asking his opinion of Master Bateman.
On February 28, 2016 at 5:54 am, UNCLEELMO said:
Don’t miss the comments to David’s Oath Keepers article. There are references to Robert Bateman’s career and it seems it’s mostly administrative and academic. Many of the commenters say that he has never served in combat.
With all due respect, when he says he’s really good at killing he might be referring to a bottle of scotch after a hard day behind his desk.
On February 29, 2016 at 9:34 am, Ned Weatherby said:
I noticed that, Uncle. Seems he was thought of as a REMF career firster to those who knew hem.