US Armed Forces: Guardians Of The Constitution, Right?

2014-08-23T18:07:31-04:00

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?

It's Time We Talk About Guns

Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2014 8:10 PM

2014-08-23T20:10:30-04:00

What in the world does this have to do with the US Armed Forces? Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 24 at 2014 11:23 AM

2014-08-24T11:23:13-04:00

The eternal debate on the second amendment is a debate over interpretation. IMHO, I don't think LTC Robert Bateman, or anyone who expresses their feelings that the 2nd amendment is possibly in need of some updating is guilty of "sublime subversion of the Constitution". Let's re-examine the 1st Constitutional Amendment, if there is a question on that point. "Publicly advocating for an unconstitutional policy and the development of laws to achieve what he deems to be "the best" for Americans. No one - to my knowledge - has ever declared discussing Constitutional Amendments, unconstitutional. Take out that one word, "unconstitutional" - "Publicly advocating for a policy and the development of laws to achieve what he deems to be "the best" for Americans." - and you've simply defined what our government as a whole does on a daily basis.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 4:42 PM

2014-08-24T16:42:10-04:00

"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."

You do realize that the alleged unconstitutionality of what he advocates is not a *given*, right? People can *debate* these things, and come away completely disagreeing on them, so making it criminal to propose something that *some* see as unconstitutional is some very messed-up ground to stake your claim to.

The crux of LTC Bateman's argument is:
-- America has a gun violence problem [true].
-- America isn't taking smart measures (or much of any) to deal with its gun violence problem [true - in fact, in the term of our current President, regulations have gotten more lax even as we've had several national tragedies].
-- Conservatives in government and on the Supreme Court have willfully ignored the first clause of the second amendment, which is basically a cardinal sin of constitutional interpretation, in order to get the desired results out of the second clause [true, and in some cases they're on record as not caring about the first clause, which makes *them* be the unconstitutional ones].
-- Gun regulations are not *de facto* unconstitutional, even under the Scalia interpretation of the second amendment, but are only so based on the way and/or degree they infringe on the right [true].
-- Therefore, let's do something intelligent and reasonable about America's gun problem [a moral statement, but one that most can agree with at least in the broad principle].
-- And here's what I (LTC Bateman) propose as the way to do it [the real problem lies here, as this is what people really disagree on].

You see how the argument rests on a series of facts, one conclusion, and one opinion? The facts aren't the problem; even the conclusion isn't really that controversial unless you're a nutcase. It's only an issue with his proposed regulations.

Now, personally, I see #1,2, & 6 from his list as highly problematic, and I could see a viable argument for 2 in particular as probably plainly unconstitutional, but 3-5 actually make a great deal of sense (with some modification) as a starting point if you are planning to actually do anything about the gun violence problem.

So, instead of suggesting that LTC Bateman be brought up on charges for his opinion or for trying to use the legislative process (so either a first amendment violation or a disregarding of legislative immunity), perhaps we could re-frame this as a chance to explain/debate what you see as ways to address the gun violence problem in this nation in a way that you feel would comport with the constitution...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 2:26 AM

2014-08-27T02:26:42-04:00

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.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-03-12T09:09:35-04:00

It sounds to me like he's using his first amendment right. I don't agree with it, but criminalizing speech seems to be a more egregious crime.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-03-12T11:27:42-04:00

My response to LTC Bateman is : Horse Hockey.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Mar 12 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-03-12T12:01:58-04:00

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?

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 12 at 2015 6:42 PM

2015-03-12T18:42:35-04:00

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-03-12T19:33:39-04:00

Good thing he's not in charge. Sound like he has symptoms of "Intellectual Arrogantitism." LOL

Response by MAJ Derrick J. made Nov 22 at 2015 1:02 PM

2015-11-22T13:02:17-05:00

If he ever posts on Rally Point I'll be happy to join you in calling this renegade officer out. I've gone after (professionally of course) officers senior to me when necessary / appropriate. I stand with you and everyone else who takes the Oath and the Constitution seriously.

Response by MAJ Derrick J. made Nov 22 at 2015 1:12 PM

2015-11-22T13:12:31-05:00

[login to see] .

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Nov 22 at 2015 1:32 PM

2015-11-22T13:32:55-05:00

Considering the article's two years old, looks like this one went in the "good idea bin" with the rest of them.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 22 at 2015 2:45 PM

2015-11-22T14:45:46-05:00

I like to think if the politicians and public go astray, the military will have its requisite values as the holder of the nation's ideals.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 2:12 AM

2016-03-22T02:12:29-04:00

It is wrong to go against the US Constitution. I did some homework back in about 2001, 2002 and learned how and why they are getting away with the : "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."
They justify the changing of the US Constitution by changing it three ways!!!
Yet the Constitution states you change it only one way: by the people and for the people through constitutional voting!!! i.e. formal way.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Mar 27 at 2017 4:27 PM

2017-03-27T16:27:37-04:00

And just think, a lot of us older folks used to like Esquire magazine.

Response by SGT Robert Martin made May 14 at 2018 12:37 AM

2018-05-14T00:37:46-04:00

The issue is he's using the uniform to add wieght to his message. That's wrong on too many levels to mention here.
When flag burning became the " in " thing for college students to do again a few years back I was asked my thoughts as a veteran. My answer was simple as much as I have the very concept they have the to burn the very flag I fought for, and better men than I have died to protect that right. Now just because you have the right doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just like walking into a biker bar, and bad moulthing Harley's and those that ride them is free speech it's just not safe to do so. Putting flame to old glory is a right, but doing it in front of me, or most Americans is going to land you in the emergency room.
The man has the right to express his beliefs, but not to use his service to bolster his argument. Also he should look around before he tries to get peoples rights taken away. He might find himself in unfriendly territory.