Military Prying Our Guns From Our Cold Dead Hands – One of Obama’s Ideal New Military Leaders Speaks
The Army officer, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, in words reminiscent of B. Hussein Obama’s comments, writes of his professional killing expertise. Of course, when the Lt. Col. says the he’s really good at killing, it’s much more believable.
His take on the second amendment is that the average citizen and his neighbors who are not military guardsmen are not entitled to the same freedoms under the Constitution that he is. He is saying that the second amendment right to bear arms is only for those composing a “well regulated militia.” In essence, that there are two Bills of Rights, one with ten amendments for him and the military, and another for civilians which has nine amendments.
I might further mention to the Lt. Col. that while he has been plying his trade in foreign countries, substantive arguments could be made as to whether it was in the defense of his nation or as a tool of an imperialistic cadre disguised as a government, acting on behalf of commercial interests under the guise of national security.
A lot of lives have been lost and a lot of damage has been done to avenge the acts of 19 U.S. trained “foreign terrorists.”
His argument, in effect, makes the holders of nine rights subservient or of a lesser class of citizenry than his group which has ten. By his interpretation, we should be unarmed or less sufficiently armed while he is given the right to own firearms of his choosing, in essence giving control over us to him and his ilk.
That type of thinking exposes one of the dangers that the second amendment was created to protect us from. The average citizens don’t want or need this trained Army officer patrolling our streets. We don’t really need him overseas fighting for multi-national corporate interests in our name either. We are fully capable of responsible gun ownership and the exercise of our freedoms at home on our own behalf.
He speaks of how great things are in Britain; how the rate of gun deaths is lower because they are an unarmed society. He doesn’t quote any statistics regarding the number of assaults, murders by other lethal means, rapes, muggings, or any of the other crimes which are easily prevented by armed citizens protecting themselves.
In order to get the full picture, one needs to remember that gun deaths reported include incidences of self defense, police shootings, gang violence, and many deaths other than the perceived misuse by an average otherwise law-abiding citizen.
It would also be helpful to the argument to consider that rapes are 125% higher in the U.K., and that assaults are 133% more prevalent in the United Kingdom. Another, more ambiguous but telling statistic is how safe people feel walking in the dark. The U.K. ranks 12th, America is 2nd. These statistics are taken from NationMaster and are purported to be continually updated from multiple international sources, including United Nations agencies.
As he speaks from his pinnacle, of how he deserves and is entitled to more rights than we non-soldiers, maybe he needs to be reminded that he is getting paid and will receive retirement pay and other benefits in exchange for his service. All of the funding for his compensation comes from those he sees as having lesser rights than he. His employment is made possible by us. His position of perceived entitlement is granted by us.
He clouds the purely American issue of our right to bear arms by lamenting his inability to defend American gun violence to his British friends. I am not concerned with his personal difficulties relating to the locals and it is a totally irrelevant argument to the domestic issue of American citizens and their rights as sovereigns under the United States Constitution.
The American people have a right to defend themselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Those enemies can take on a variety of forms, from individual civilian criminals to a criminal government, to a criminal military. The only real protection we have from any of those potential threats is the right to be a threat in return. A right to forcibly end bad behavior if the need presents itself.
Lt. Col. Bateman and other like-minded individuals who choose to tread on my rights and those of my fellow Americans will just have to deal with the reality that the Constitution was written to protect all of us from people who think it was written just for them. We all have a ten amendment Bill of Rights.
The Lt. Col.’s position on how to deal with the rest of us, as outlined in Esquire.com is below:
“Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. 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. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:
1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
• a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
• b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
• c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs — or the jobs of some other cops — harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide “buy-back” program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.”
Thank you, Lt. Col. for exposing the dangers of depending upon a military for our domestic security.
Please scroll to the bottom of this page for more posts from Rick Wells, or to “Like” him on Facebook.
