Posted on Aug 23, 2014
US Armed Forces: Guardians Of The Constitution, Right?
11.5K
61
42
12
12
0
I am calling out LTC Robert Bateman for his unconstitutional perspective. I am doing so because he's going beyond simply holding a personal belief, but is also advocating for the elimination (effectively) of the 2nd Amendment AND for making that belief Federal and State policy, i.e. law.
NOTE: He's not a RallyPoint member.
My issue with him is not his belief, but that he is publicly advocating for an unconstitutional policy and the development of laws to achieve what he deems to be "the best" for Americans.
This is contrary to our oath, period.
I would publicly debate him and I would also vehemently chastise him for his sublime subversion of the Constitution.
We see politicians "sublimely" subvert the Constitution all the time through the legislation that they propose. In my mind, this sublime subversion should be illegal. That doesn't mean that we start prosecuting people for ideas, but that we evaluate legislation for its constitutionality before passage. Then, if its still passed, despite its questionable constitutionality then let the prosecutions begin, after SCOTUS review.
And yes, I am advocating for criminalizing the subversion of our Constitution and for lifetime prohibitions for serving in any government role, office or contract position, federal or state. This would have to be carefully crafted because we don't want to criminalize thought and ideas.
What I am focusing on here is the clear intentionality behind the ACT OF ignoring constitutional questionability and simply passing law because it sounds or feels like a good way to go, without regard for whether or not it passes constitutional muster.
The lack of knowledge about US and World History, and the Founding Fathers & how the Constitution was formed, infuriates me because we increasingly see UNINFORMED people saying things that are patently untrue or supremely misguided. Either way, there is no excuse for this either.
His article on Esquire:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
A Counter-Point Article:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/lt-col-robert-bateman-not-shown-on-guns-screw-you-2a/
WHAT SAY YOU?
NOTE: He's not a RallyPoint member.
My issue with him is not his belief, but that he is publicly advocating for an unconstitutional policy and the development of laws to achieve what he deems to be "the best" for Americans.
This is contrary to our oath, period.
I would publicly debate him and I would also vehemently chastise him for his sublime subversion of the Constitution.
We see politicians "sublimely" subvert the Constitution all the time through the legislation that they propose. In my mind, this sublime subversion should be illegal. That doesn't mean that we start prosecuting people for ideas, but that we evaluate legislation for its constitutionality before passage. Then, if its still passed, despite its questionable constitutionality then let the prosecutions begin, after SCOTUS review.
And yes, I am advocating for criminalizing the subversion of our Constitution and for lifetime prohibitions for serving in any government role, office or contract position, federal or state. This would have to be carefully crafted because we don't want to criminalize thought and ideas.
What I am focusing on here is the clear intentionality behind the ACT OF ignoring constitutional questionability and simply passing law because it sounds or feels like a good way to go, without regard for whether or not it passes constitutional muster.
The lack of knowledge about US and World History, and the Founding Fathers & how the Constitution was formed, infuriates me because we increasingly see UNINFORMED people saying things that are patently untrue or supremely misguided. Either way, there is no excuse for this either.
His article on Esquire:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
A Counter-Point Article:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/lt-col-robert-bateman-not-shown-on-guns-screw-you-2a/
WHAT SAY YOU?
Constitution
Law
2nd Amendment
Oath
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
10
10
0
LTC Bateman thinks he's smarter than the founding fathers and the US supreme court combined. He focuses on only the first 4 words of the line, "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." He argues that only the Militia should be armed in America. (so turn in your weapons, CIA, DIA, NSA, Homeland Security, etc) In doing so, he forgets "the people". Not a small thing for the founders.
He also attempts to single-handedly redefine what the founders meant when they said "well regulated militia." During the revolutionary war, the militia was drawn from the populace at large (the people). They were farmers, fishermen, and tradesmen who were asked to leave their homes (most often with their own personal guns) and help fight the fight...often without a contract requiring years of service, and without any sense of subordination to the federal government. They fought for their families and for their freedom...not for their state and certainly not for their federal government. If they fought for America, it was for the ideal it represented in freedom from tyranny, not for the US government.
Today's National Guard is an excellent fighting force bearing little relation to the militia of late 18th century America. It is funded and controlled by the state and executes humanitarian, disaster, and peacekeeping missions for its state. But today, Guardsmen most often pick up their weapons for longer than 3 weeks only when federalized. And they are federalized consistently. During those times, they are agents of the US government, under contract, and obeying the orders of the President. They are no longer militia. So should they get no guns?
He also attempts to single-handedly redefine what the founders meant when they said "well regulated militia." During the revolutionary war, the militia was drawn from the populace at large (the people). They were farmers, fishermen, and tradesmen who were asked to leave their homes (most often with their own personal guns) and help fight the fight...often without a contract requiring years of service, and without any sense of subordination to the federal government. They fought for their families and for their freedom...not for their state and certainly not for their federal government. If they fought for America, it was for the ideal it represented in freedom from tyranny, not for the US government.
Today's National Guard is an excellent fighting force bearing little relation to the militia of late 18th century America. It is funded and controlled by the state and executes humanitarian, disaster, and peacekeeping missions for its state. But today, Guardsmen most often pick up their weapons for longer than 3 weeks only when federalized. And they are federalized consistently. During those times, they are agents of the US government, under contract, and obeying the orders of the President. They are no longer militia. So should they get no guns?
(10)
(0)
7
7
0
COL Ted Mc
LTC (Join to see) - Colonel; LTC Bateman is partially correct - the two halves of the Second Amendment are independent from each other.
The primarily independent part is the second half (the right to keep and bear arms) because without that right there would be no possibility of having a "well regulated Militia" (as it was then understood). Whether or not there is ACTUALLY a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevant to the fact that one IS necessary to preserving a free state in the face of governmental oppression.
In short "A" is "necessary" to do "B" but you cannot (be sure that you will) have "A" unless you have "C" so that means that "C" is also "necessary" - even if you don't actually have "A" at the moment because you may well need to have "A" to do "B" in the future and you simply can't have "A" without "C".
The primarily independent part is the second half (the right to keep and bear arms) because without that right there would be no possibility of having a "well regulated Militia" (as it was then understood). Whether or not there is ACTUALLY a "well regulated Militia" is irrelevant to the fact that one IS necessary to preserving a free state in the face of governmental oppression.
In short "A" is "necessary" to do "B" but you cannot (be sure that you will) have "A" unless you have "C" so that means that "C" is also "necessary" - even if you don't actually have "A" at the moment because you may well need to have "A" to do "B" in the future and you simply can't have "A" without "C".
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Sir, unfortunately, the vast majority of "anti-gunners" use emotionality to deceive and get their way as well as being against the Constitution. The ever-changing arguments and rhetoric is based on falsehoods and unproven theories. It doesn't surprise me one bit to see senior personnel embrace a stance like this. Sadly, there are many in the military who have embraced subjugation and enslavement instead of freedom for all.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google