The de-Bateman continues
The discussion that Lieutenant Colonel Robert Lake Bateman started the other day, when he said that he wanted to take our guns from our cold, dead hands in Esquire Magazine continues. There are some pictures and articles about another Col. Robert J. Bateman floating around the internet, but that’s not this guy. So be careful out there.
Folks who know Bateman have been telling us that Robert L. Bateman hasn’t commanded infantry troops since he was a Second Lieutenant. They tell me that his company command was a Headquarters Company – not there’s anything wrong with that – but he should have told us that to him “managing violence” means having a layout inspection in the motorpool. Or signing statements of charges for the equipment he can’t account for in the unit.
In other places on the internet, he makes a big deal about being a Ranger – which is a big deal – but he also admits that he doesn’t have a Combat Infantryman Badge. Which means that he’s never heard a shot fired in anger, except maybe on Victory Drive when he was running loose during Infantry Officers’ Basic Course. I can’t for the life of me think of an excuse big enough for an infantry LTC to not have a CIB after more than a decade of war. Even I tried to get back in the Army during the surge in Iraq. It was one thing during my time for an officer to miss out on Grenada, Panama or Desert Storm, quite another to miss the Global War on Terror, you know, what with it being global and everything.
Our buddy, and frequent commenter on TAH, Michael Z. Williamson, writes this morning about how even Mr. Williamson’s daughter thinks Bateman is a huge pansy.
In response to comments and outrage, he called a documented SF soldier a “faker,” a former AF Security Policeman who’s now a federal agent a “peacetime veteran,” and a gay, black 2nd Amendment supporter a “fake persona,” because no gay black man could POSSIBLY support gun ownership. (That person’s an acquaintance of mine. Gay, black, gun owning, conservative, union train engineer. How awesome is THAT combination?)
In short, he’s the textbook example of the small-dicked little limpwrist who joined the military to prove he’s not, and hates guns because he does have something to compensate for. Likely why he’s been cuckolded twice and divorced. He doesn’t measure up, literally and emotionally. Google “psychological projection.”
Bateman uses his rank and military experience, or rather the lack thereof as proof of his authority on the subject, then when people criticize the fact that he comes up short in the credentials thing, he says we’re “dick measuring”, well, he shouldn’t have brought that pathetic little thing out in the first place.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Shitbags
VWP, what in the wide, wide world of sports are you talking about? I mean, seriously. Do you actually proofread anything or it is all just stream of unconsciousness?
The guy is as much an Infantry Officer as I am an Infantryman. Oh, and I was in a supply slot to an infantry company.
It is a matter of historical record that the VietNamese Air Force bombed the village of Trang Bang.
Unlike your dimwitted retorts, those records are available, not made up out of skittles and unicorn farts.
vwpustule, you’re an asshole, plain and simple. I keep wondering if your mother had any human children that lived. Obviously, you were a high school biology experiment left behind in the incubator – an experiment that failed.
Vietnamese airforce was amerikkka’s running dog! And it has taken along time to get those three k’s out of America!
you know @53, your troll-fu is weak. when I read your posts I don’t get mad, I just think, “the stupid is strong with this one”. perhaps it’s time to find another forum to try and get your jollies?
VWP is just another tool come lately that gets no trim.
Very simple.
VWP,
Didn’t your mother or father tell you never to use rubbing alcohol in your bong?
Just askin’.
VWP, if you dislike America so much, why are you living here and reaping the benefits of citizenship in such a place?
I see vwp is still an idiot. In these uncertain times, it’s nice to know that there are certain things on which you can just depend.
I love america the greatest country on earth thanks to liberals and progressives and in spite of conservatives! 1776 cons were loyalists 1860 cons were slave holders in the south copperheads in the north 1941 cons were isolationists 1950’s cons segregationists 1964 goldilox votes against civil rights bill 1968 cons were superpatriotic vietnam war chicken hawk draft doggers like mitt romney dick cheney rush limbaugh! 1980’s reagon iran-countra treason ollie involved with bill casey’s secret wat to fund the contra’s selling cia contra dope to black school children! 2001 bush doesn’t stop 9-11 even though cia warns him about because neo-cons need “second pearl harbor” peanac 1998! Now cons trying to sabaotge econmy after there get rich quik scemes explodes the economy in 2008!
VWP,
You should have attended AM HIST 101 sober. You have everything ass backwards.
Personally, I WANT him to put rubbing alcohol in his bong, then hit it with a blowtorch.
I’ll then volunteer to put his face out with an axe.
VWP, give The Phildo at APL a call.
He is lecturing and giving keynote speeches at a variety of junior colleges.
I am sure he will and can help you out.
More your speed.
I am convinced that VWP should be paid a stipend by this blog for the entertainment value he provides. He’s like the clown in the dunking booth.
People actually would pay to drop him into the fountain of knowledge.
Old Dog ain’t that the truth.
@63
I dunno. Even if it’s legal where vwp lives, would it really be ethical to fund vwp’s drug habit?
@63, don’t you mean the “drunking booth”?
I doubt that vwp even bothers with pot, he sounds like some flunkie that sniffs glue and spray paint behind some gas station.
Now, people, it’s not nice to make fun of the mentally impaired… except vwp is not actually impaired, he’s just plain old mind-blowingly stupid. Doesn’t provide even remotely the entertainment of pickwickre peckrewood.
vwpinhead is more like one of those annoying bugs that get into clouds after they hatch, and form pink columns that waft around with the wind, until they’re eaten by hungry frogs and fish.
I’m beginning to think that vwp was cloned from the same test tube of DNA that Bateman and Psul were, the one labeled “DEFECTIVE, DO NOT USE!”.
Proud, I concur.
VWPutz – Stupid cannot be cured. Stupid is forever, and that be you, fool, a stupid idiot forever.
Go change those pissy yellow sheets of yours, Bedwetter.
He won’t, OldSarge, he’ll just lay in them and blame everyone else before he goes off to sniff glue and spray paint.
Another thought, I propose that we refer to him as “LTC Batshit”, as in batshit crazy!
Hondo, I’m thinking if he was out of Prosperity he could have made the odd run to Victory or BIAP down Irish. Chance of adventure if he was riding with Blackwater PSD.
PFM: could be. Not sure where MNSTC-I had assets in 2005-2006; I was in Baghdad over a year later. MNSTC-I could have had elements at Prosperity while he was there.
However, his bio says he was the Senior Strategist for MNSTC-I. I’m thinking that would have put him at MNSTC-I HQ – in the IZ proper (AMEMB area), I think, but I could well be wrong.
Either way, macht nichts. He could indeed have done a VBC or BIAP trip a few times. Liberty had a damn nice PX when I was there, and I’d guess he managed to get over to VBC to visit it at least a couple of times while deployed.
“If Bateman was legally not entitled to a CIB and he’s not wearing one, then disparaging him for the lack of it isn’t kosher.”
DaveO, I would agree with you if he wasn’t pretty much using “killing is my buisness” as a qualification.
Is anyone disparaging him for not having a CIB? For my part, it’s the constant self-promotion of his largely notional infantry leadership that troubles me. I’ve kept my mouth shut about it except for when he couples it with his lesser efforts, like this Esquire piece, because I can forgive literary masturbation.
In the article I referenced, he was a ride-along with Iraqi nationals and was accosted by Blackwater, vs. actually working with contractors.
Now, before I get flamed, I admit to liking Bob. He’s a talented and prolific writer, when he stays in his lane. I get annoyed when he takes aggrandizing “poetic license” (to say the least) with his infantry career, or when he scribes a ham-handed piece like this in Esquire. But Article 88 doesn’t list any member of the judicial branch as an official an officer can’t use contemptuous words against. Bob knows Article 88, he’s written about it enough as to why he’d never, ever be in print criticizing a Prez or Congress. He’s savvy enough to know Justice Scalia is, under UCMJ, fair game. Holding his own opinion on the 2nd Amendment, too, is perfectly legitimate. His isn’t an old position, either…my friend who is a Constitutional law and Constitutional historian points out that much of the initial arguments over the 2nd Amendment buttress some of Bateman’s opinion. It was often a tripartite argument – standing army vs. state militias vs. individual rights to bear arms, with a lot of overlap and discussion. And while I think what they came up with was a great solution, he’s free to believe otherwise. Bateman, to me, deserves a rounding critique on substance…he cites the Militia Act of 1903 and that it created the National Guard as the “well regulated militia.” Well, he didn’t read enough. The Act also defined an unorganized reserve militia, without much definition to its make-up other than, oh, every swinging dick between the ages of 17 and 45. I also thing Bateman really sells Scalia short in many other ways. Scalia’s opinion was a strong historical narrative about both the broad definition of militia and previous Congress’ take on the right to bear arms as self-defense. A post-Civil War Congress deemed blacks had the right to bear arms in self-defense, and that was never overturned by SCOTUS. By hook or by crook, no matter how Bateman wants to parse the 1903 Act, our system has validated both a broad definition of of militia and right to bear arms that his arguments have no standing. Clearly, both… Read more »
@78: Bateman thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and that’s his downfall; his ego.
The Federalist Papers bare out the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment and what it is for, so he could have saved himself a lot of trouble and consternation if he would have just read them and found out what it’s there for. I don’t agree with a lot of things, however, just because I don’t agree with someone being able to burn our flag, without being wrapped in it at the time, doesn’t mean I can write an article in a magazine stating that because I don’t agree with it being legal, that everyone should bow to my will, without receiving a lot of heat from those who say it’s “settled law”.
Bob’s a doucherocket, whether you agree with me, or not.
Along with engaging in selective quotation, Bateman is also about 109 years late in the law he’s citing as historical precedent. The original Federal Militia Acts (1792) also provided universal militia membership: “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.” Militia Act of 1792 (second, passed 8 May 1792). http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm The act goes on to state the following (emphasis added): 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. The key words there are “provide himself”. This is explicit statutory recognition of the individual right to own and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment – by literally the same people who wrote and ratified that amendment a few years earlier. Those who argue otherwise are either ignorant of history – or are deliberately ignoring it. The concept of universal militia membership predates the Constitution. The earliest recorded colonial militia was instituted in Massachusettes in 1630. It was likewise universal. http://www.history.army.mil/reference/mamil/MAMIL.HTM As a historian, Bateman damn well knows he’s “cherry picking” facts here in order to promote a preconceived… Read more »
I’m fairly sure I wasn’t saying anyone should bow to anyone’s will nor not receive heat. I just prefer factual refutation to ad hominem. It’s all well and good here, because outside of Paul Wickre and the occasional troll, we generally all agree on point.
The Federalists weren’t the only parties to ratification, and the Papers subsequently only shed light on their positions, some of which Bateman could cherrypick (particularly #29) to buttress his position on militias over individual right to bear arms. I find materials from Anti-Federalists like Mason or Henry to be equally insightful, as it’s clear from the states’ rights camp and Scalia’s opinion, that EVERYBODY is the militia. Bateman’s criticism of the 2nd Amendment and Scalia is incomplete. To me, responding to Bateman in an equally incomplete manner is unhelpful.
We’re right, but I feel strongly that we should be grown-ups and put the care into refuting him on point rather than giving ourselves insulated invective feelies.
Hondo, the Militia Act of 1903 explicitly repealed the 1792 act, but it still defines a nearly universal militia that Bateman ignored. Scalia clearly ignored either.
And indeed, he should know better.
Scalia clearly ignored “neither,” I should say. The Left likes to pretend like he just wings it, but the man is a phenomenal scholar.
BK: agreed that the 1903 Militia Act is now operative. I mentioned the 1792 Militia Act in order to show that Bateman the Historian was ignoring virtually all of US history vice “only” the last 110 years. (smile)
Both acts prescribed virtually universal militia membership. Additionally, the 1792 act also required the militia member to bring his personally-owned firearm when called for duty. In effect, it went beyond the 2nd Amendment’s recognition of personal ownership of firearms as an individual right – it made it a male citizen’s duty to own a weapon.
While you and BK are agreeing on something, Hondo, it’s my personal opinion that every citizen from the age of 11 up should be required to learn firearms safety and proper usage, but not necessarily required to own one.
That would certainly cause a dust storm in the lefties. But it’s no different than having a driver’s license. You take the test and pass it, get the license but don’t necessarily own a car.
BK; I don’t know, I think Bob wants us to bend to his will, as he states what he thinks the law should be and that if we don’t agree with him, we are poopy heads.
I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but it’s sounds like you should be talking to Bob, not us. Bob’s using his job and rank in an attempt to silence debate of his opinion. Personally, if he wanted to say “I’m Bob and this is my opinion”, but he doesn’t and then gets all up in it with his own juvenile quips to others in order to try and give his own inflated ego more credibility than anyone else.
As I said; he’s a doucherocket.
If you want to know my thoughts on the 2nd Amendment and society, read my post about it.
FOIA him.
I don’t think Bateman is correct to refute any part of the Constitution while he’s still under oath to defend it. Private citizens have that right — he doesn’t.
MTW: a FOIA won’t return much regarding him if he’s still serving on active duty (as he seems to be). It’s only after an individual is released from active duty that most of the info listed here is subject to release by NPRC under the FOIA.
OK, so, well, guess it’s time for me to step in with clarifications…
Look, we all know that what I suggested is not even remotely possible. It was a rhetorical device designed to get people talking at a time when we are not, communally in the wake of some horrific event.
No way it would work, because it would take 100 years to do peacefully (and non-confiscatorially, as I suggested), and at least four generations. Plus, it would take at least 50 years to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals.
But think, men, why is it that a country of 120 million (Japan) can have just 2 (yea, TWO) gun deaths in 2006, and when it “skyrockets” to 22 in 2007, it is a national scandal? Other English speaking countries with a frontier heritage, like Australia and NZ, have death rates of 1.3…we have 10.3.
And we lose the military potential (measured in economic loss, let alone recruiting loss) of more than 100,000 Americans who are shot each year. Do YOU have a recommended solution to this drain on our national defenses? I am all ears.
Bateman
Well, the IP address is coming from Birmingham, UK, so it might be Bateman. Bob, my main complaint is that you’re member of the military and you’re espousing political opinions. And then, you want to use your military career as some sort of source for your authority in the discussion. And, you’re fanning the fears of conspiracy theorists who are afraid that the military won’t blink when they’re ordered to come and take our guns. Here’s my solution for you – if you’re so scared of Americans with guns, stay in England, just retire right there. Heck, move to Japan or Australia if you want, but please don’t come back here – your irrational fear of Americans owning guns would probably put you in a VA rubber room somewhere. Just leave those of us with the guts to live among a heavily armed society, those of us who are comforted by the millions of gun owners living around us and not shooting anyone because of the outcome of a sporting event. Just stay there, Bob, I’d hate to think of you cowering in a corner of your basement behind a pile of sandbags. Thanks for coming by.
Stop addressing the tool used, and start looking at the causes of the killings. You are blaming the tool, not the motivation of the killer.
Also, a large number of those deaths are criminals killed while committing a felony by Police or armed Citizens, but they are still counted in that number also.
We have a much larger number of people killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents each year, yet there are no calls to take away automobiles or even restrict them more than they already are.
Bob you put too much emphasis on the gun as the cause, when it is not the gun. It is the person pulling the trigger.
Let’s address the real issues Bob. Crime and violence is so prevalent in our inner cities! It is where the majority of all violent crime occurs. There are just 4 or 5 Cities in the US that account for the overwhelming majority of gun violence in the US. It is not the presence of guns, they are illegal there. It is the lack of family structure, the lack of community structure, it is the lack of willpower on the local and state levels, and even the federal level to face the truth about what is going on there. Gangs have replaced families, drugs and human trafficking are the core economies of those areas, and the turf they take place on is violently protected by the Gangs running it.
Yet we want to just give the problems lip service, and maybe throw some more tax payer dollars at the “problem” only resulting in more people on the public dime, and more dependence on the hand that feeds/enables them…
No Bob, the gun is not the problem at all.
So, Bob, your article wasn’t a solution, but it’s your solution so we should shut up if we don’t have a better solution?
I have a better solution. Let more good guys go armed in the places where only bad guys are armed.
“And we lose the military potential (measured in economic loss, let alone recruiting loss) of more than 100,000 Americans who are shot each year.”
Well, let’s take the 75% of Americans who are currently unfit for military service out of that number and it isn’t so bad of a blow. Also, adjust it for who actually gets shot, not assuming that the shooting deaths represent an accurate cross section of American society. How many ‘victims’ of gun violence are already convicted felons or otherwise unable to serve in the military? The question bears examination, not just a knee-jerk “too many people are getting killed! The Army can’t make it’s recruitment mission!”
In Japan you can walk down the street in the middle of the night; why because parents and police have authority and respect.
If you want to plug the drain on our national defenses, require every man who fathers a child to be responsible for the child. How many kids would be in correctional facilities if the parents had to pay tuition to the facilities in cash or kind?
I say if you shoot somebody in the commission of a crime, then you, not the public pay, for his family’s support. If your kid shoots somebody in the same manner, you pay the support.
If you shoot somebody in self-defense, say a criminal has broken into your house and has threatened your life, you, not the criminal’s family, become the recipient of the criminal’s estate.
How’s that Bateman?
“I am all ears.” And here I thought that you were all ass. See what I did there, Bobby? I used a rhetorical device. Nifty, eh?
Oh, here we go. I’m a photographer. I use cameras for my work. I used them in the Navy, in a civilian job, and I still use them on my hikes. The camera is a tool of my trade. Without me there to pick up the camera, set the film/ISO speed, make a decision about whether to use on of the following modes: manual, aperture, shutter speed, or automatic, the camera just sits there and does NOT A DAMNED THING. It can’t take pictures by itself, unless it is specifically set up to do so, either on remote or as timed shots. Game trail cameras are automatic cameras that are set off by motion sensors, as are surveillance cameras. That is the closest any camera or video system can come to shooting pictures without someone behind the camera clicking the shutter. The camera is the same thing as a gun: unable to function without an operator. So blaming a camera for taking lousy pictures is denying that you, as a camera user, i.e., a photographer, have not part in taking those pictures. It’s fine way to deny any reponsibility for taking crappy shots of a subject. In regard to cameras in phones, since they’re so popular, the person who uses the phone camera to shoot revenge porn of his girlfriend in case she wants to break up with him doesn’t have a leg to stand on when he publishes the revenge porn on the internet, which, by the way, is illegal. He can’t blame the camera. The comparison of a camera to a gun and the responsibility for misuse is exactly the same. The gun is NOT going to shoot anyone UNLESS SOMEONE PULLS THE TRIGGER, Bateman, you dimwit. When you blame the gun instead of the user, you’re as stupid as people who blame their cameras for taking bad pictures. That puts you in the same category as the guy who shoots revenge porn of his girlfriend and publishes it when she dumps him. Your argument doesn’t hold water, not by a country mile. It is as full of… Read more »
Bob,
Jonn is quite right here. You are blatantly in the wrong using your military title and position to publicly push a political agenda – and as a former public affairs senior NCO, if you were in my command, I’d chew your stupid fucking ass up one side and down the other in the CG’s office.
You’re a fucking disgrace to the uniform, your oath, your unit and the Army.
“And we lose the military potential (measured in economic loss, let alone recruiting loss) of more than 100,000 Americans who are shot each year. Do YOU have a recommended solution to this drain on our national defenses? I am all ears.”
Well, first I say let’s see if your claim is valid. 100,000 I will take at face value, accurate or not. Your claim is based on the premise that all 100,000 will be fit for military service. Of course we all know claiming that would be absurd, as we know that 75% of military age persons are for various reasons are not eligible. So if all 100,000 were of military age and were exactly representative of the population then 75% of your argument just evaporated.
But even that isn’t all. Not all of your persons shot are of military or even working age- probably another 10% of your pool goes away (actually probably more, but I am being conservative). Then we have to ask are the people shot a pool that is representative of the population at large? No, not even close. Most gun violence in this country falls into two categories- suicides and shots fired between criminals. The first represents a mentally unstable an a high percentage mentally ill pool that is mostly inelegible for military service anyway. The second is represented by criminals shooting each other. Besides the fact that most of these lack a high school diploma, have a history or drug use and have criminal histories that make them inelegible, the ones that would be are the kind that any person who has held command in combat knows are the ones that are a liability.
So, 100,000 people shot from a pool that is probably 85-95% either not eligible or not desirable for militry service= virtually no impact. Certainly not enough to warrant the wholesale removal of a Constitutional right.
BK… A bit of a correction. In TOE infantry and cavalry units (Strykers in my Case) the S3 is doctrinally with the TAC, while the XO gets stuck in the TOC. Depending on the unit and the op tempo, the TAC is only three vehicles and is typically wherever on the battlefield where the CO can best influence the fight. Almost every TAC at battalion and brigade level I knew spent from 12-20 hours a day out in the AO, coming back only to cut the next days FRAGO and maybe cap a few zzzzs. Most combat arms (real ones) commanders and soon to be commanders didn’t get there because they like chilling in the office. They’re curious cats and if anything have to be restrained from directly involving themselves anytime a TIC came cross the net. It was a rare one that wouldn’t immediately roll to “help” that poor CPT or lt. Just wanted to set the record clear.
How is this a drain on our “national defense” when the Army is tying to shed the soldiers it already has?
Totally invalid arguement from the inception.