Army Lt. Col. wants to pry guns from cold dead fingers of American citizens

Army Lt. Col. wants to pry guns from cold dead fingers of American citizens. Go ahead and try, Mr. Bateman. If you think you’re man enough, I’ll send you my address.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (60)

  • And to top it off, after finally seeing this guys photo, how did he meet the military height/weight standard? He's in the fat-boy program for sure.

    • Without actually delving into his specific future- perhaps his progressive, anti-Constitutional leanings has made him an ideal replacement subsequent to the purge of military officers underway... Adolph Obama clearly wants the military to answer to him and not the Constitution- whose nullification has been aptly demonstrated.

      Edit... I actually clicked the link and that's more or less what is stated up front in the article.

    • This piece has generated so much Internet action, it's hard to tell what's true and what's not. Or even what picture is really him. One website claims he's not in the regular Army but is only a part-timer in the NY National Guard. Esquire, the place that gives him a forum, has absolutely no biographical data. Who knows? Maybe Obama is hiring professional agitators to pretend they're military personnel.

  • I would lay a huge bet that this Lt. Col. meets the definition of "REMF" and is *not* is a combat arms specialty....

    • Sparta learned an important lesson from that battle, a lesson we would be wise to apply to Hollywood:

      Never rely on Thespians.

  • Here is my exchange to date with LTC Bateman. Start at the bottom. You all judge.

    Sir:

    I appreciate the response but you are wrong regarding the intent of the 2d Amendment. The primary author of the Amendment, George Mason, knew exactly what he was saying and in the language of the day a militia was the people. An organized professional fighting force was an army. The word "militia" was chosen to point out that the purpose of an armed citizenry was to protect itself from a tyrannical government, which means that the people have to be armed sufficiently to carry out that protection. I do not believe you can find writings by any of the Founders that describe the right to bear arms as a collective right. These men were products of The Enlightenment, they read Locke and described there cause as being grounded in natural rights. The right to defend one's life liberty, and property is a natural right.

    Therefore, you are wrong. Only people opposed to the 2d Amendment for whatever reasons see it as a collective right and your use of the word "support" in the context you chose is wrongheaded thinking. One does not support per se but exercises the fundamental right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. Nothing was radically changed. The Heller decision reaffirmed the Founders' intent that the individual has the right to protect himself and his property.

    You appear to have a very limited understanding of the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular. Your response to my email makes that clear. What is your agenda? My commissioning year was 1985, I served with the 101st for most of my active duty time and I cannot recall knowing one officer who thinks like you do. I would enjoy looking at the sources that led you to your conclusions. By sources I mean the Federalist Papers and other documents written by the Founders. Good luck with that.

    Final thought: The correct way to go about changing the Constitution is to go through the amendment process. You want to disarm the citizenry, then figure out a way to repeal the 2d. You just need 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to agree. Good luck with that too.

    Regards,

    Sent from my iPad

    On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Robert Bateman wrote:

    So here's the thing, from 1787 until 2008, the 2nd Amendment was seen as a collective right. In 2008 the SCOTUS changed the 221 year-old interpretation and decided it was an individual right.

    Does that mean that for the first 221 years Americans were not free, since they only gained this individual right with the new interpretation in 2008?

    Does that mean that for the first 20 years of my career I was supporting the wrong Constitution and I have been under the "correct" Constitution only since 2008?

    And how, exactly, do we "support" the Second Amendment? What did you do to "support" the Second Amendment before or after the interpretation of it was radically changed?

    Bob Bateman

    > Subject: 2 Amendment
    > From:
    > Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 09:01:56 -0500
    > To: R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com
    >
    >
    > Dear LTC Bateman:
    >
    > I read your piece in Esquire and I imagine you are enjoying the notoriety as a result of it. I'm a former US Army officer and I find it almost impossible to believe that we swore the same oath. Your complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is only exceeded by your apparent lust for power and penchant toward totalitarianism. The Second Amendment exists to maintain the right the American people to protect themselves from a government grown tyrannical. You, sir, are an example of how a government or its agents can become tyrannical.
    >
    > The First Amendment protects your right to embarrass yourself, and by extension the US military, by writing that screed but your rights stop at the point where they infringe upon the rights of others. I hope this is the last we see of your musings on this topic.
    >
    > I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2014 but not at the expense of the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens.
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent from my iPad

      • Excellent arguments from Teri. He lost all credibility with his ridiculous assertations about gun owners threatening to kill him and rape his family. That is a tactic of the left, and likely it was leftists emailing him these threats in order to further his crusade.
        If he wants to abate the major causes of death in the US, he should start by doing some basic research.
        From the CDC:
        Leading causes of death
        The 15 leading causes of death in 2010 accounted for 80.4% of all deaths in the United States (Tables B and 9). Causes of death are ranked according to the number of deaths; for ranking procedures, see Technical Notes. By rank, the 15 leading causes in 2010 were:
        1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
        2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
        3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
        4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
        5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
        6. Alzheimer’s disease
        7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
        8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
        9. Influenza and pneumonia
        10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
        11. Septicemia
        12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
        13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
        14. Parkinson’s disease
        15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids

        The leading causes of death in 2010 remained the same as in 2009 for 14 of the 15 leading causes, although two causes exchanged ranks. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease), the 9th leading cause in 2009, became the 8th leading cause in 2010, while Influenza and pneumonia, the 8th leading cause in 2009, became the 9th leading cause of death in 2010. Assault (homicide) was replaced by Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids as the 15th leading cause of death in 2010.

    • He sounds too much like a college professor in his interpretation.
      Must not have ever served as a combat officer, or for that matter, even as an admin officer in a combat unit.
      My guess is he was in supply or in charge of the comissary or chow hall.

          • Seeing that the Lt. Col claims to have served with the 101st. Let him post his DD214. As for his position on the 2nd Amendment, he must have not read all of George Mason's writing or those of Thomas Jefferson. The 2nd Amendment is not and was not a collective right. It always leaves me wondering just why the 2nd is a collective right and the rest are individual rights. When those who oppose the 2nd Amendment are backed into defending their position and why it is the only one of the Bill of Rights that is a collective right, they lose it.

            This man's attitude is disturbing and also enlightening. He craves power and sub servitude at all cost. He is a man that is not to be trusted. He would sell out those who are or where under his leadership to further his aspiration and thrust for power. Col Nathan Jessup anyone?

  • There's a term for what should and hopefully will happen should this 1/2 bird ever give such an order. Those who've served know it, those that don't that's okay.

  • I was a only a lowly Warrant Officer, but I remember swearing an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..........has the oath of enlistment/office been removed?

  • This Lt. C see's his future tied to the Obama missive. After all only 200+ honorable men within the forces have been demoted or fired over the past few years because they dared to "contradick" the D'head. Shame on that person (one can not call this twat a man).

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015