I generally have nothing but respect for people who make the commitment to serve in the military. We sacrifice. We take an oath – a solemn promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I still live by that oath. I took it in my civilian life as well, and I am committed to it.
And while, most of us who serve and have served take that oath seriously, there are some fat, arrogant swine who somehow managed to suck enough cock to make the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and use their uniform to help destroy the very Constitution they swore to protect. Such is this… thing… Robert Bateman, who recently published an anti-gun, anti-constitution screed in Esquire advocating the complete evisceration of the Second Amendment. Now, he does state that the vile spew he published does not reflect the views of the Army or the DoD, but he certainly leans on his rank enough, as if it gives him more authority.
So yes, it’s time to talk about guns – as if that hasn’t dominated the national conversation every time some murderous freak decides to grab a firearm and destroy innocent lives.
My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.
You’re doing it wrong, fuckbat. Your job is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” If that goal requires violence, so be it. But your job is to defend this nation, not to orchestrate violence, asshole. GET OUT OF MY ARMY!
I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job.
Then what the flying hell are you doing in my military, shitbag? Why the festering, putrid fuck are you infecting our proud Army? Oh! Must be the benefits, and the schmucks who have to salute you on a daily basis. Must be the salary, and the fact that you get to live in England… Oh, he lives in England? That would explain much. Once again, if you’re not proud to be defending America’s national interests, America’s Constitution and Americans’ rights, GET OUT OF MY ARMY!
And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court.
Yeah, well good news, shitbag. We’re embarrassed to be paying you to defend our rights. GET OUT OF MY ARMY!
The people who sit on a nation’s Supreme Court as supposed to be the wisest among us. They are supposed to be the men and women who understand and speak plainly about the most difficult topics confronting our nation. Our Supreme Court, however, has been failing us, as their actions have been almost the exact opposite of this ideal.
Well, they were until the “wise Latina” was appointed to the bench, while claiming that courts make policy, along with her pal Kagan, who refused to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case, despite documented proof of her bias, but we digress…
Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in the Second Amendment which talks about “A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State…” did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history.
No, you arrogant, pedantic fucktard. It means they actually speak plain English – a skill which you apparently lack. Ergo, we’re going to turn to the late Professor Roy Copperud, who spoke with J. Neil Schulman more than 20 years ago now. Who is Roy Copperud? Obviously, someone much more educated than LTC Robert Bateman, who apparently lacks basic English skills, even as he accuses Supreme Court Justices of failing basic high school history. Copperud was a writer on major dailies for more than 30 years before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. He wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cited him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.
So yeah. Bateman couldn’t match wits with Copperud on this best day.
So what does the Second Amendment really mean? Roy Copperud explained it pretty clearly.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
“In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”
[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”
[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”
[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”
[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”
[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”
[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’
[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”
[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”
And yet here was Bateman – a pathetic O-5 – misinterpreting (or lying about) the plain meaning of the language in the Bill of Rights to promote his odious political views. In public. In a national magazine. Using his rank and his job (which he doesn’t understand) as a crutch, because he has no credibility whatsoever.
The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by the Founding Fathers was, “Yeah, they didn’t really mean what they said.”
You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational system that failed to teach history.
It certainly sounds like Scalia got it right, according to not just a renowned language expert, but also some of the best legal minds (liberal ones) in the country.
But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war. But even when partially “regulated,” militias are sloppy things. They do not always work well outside their own home states, and in our own history and in our Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for militia units to refuse to go out of their own state. In the Spanish-American war the way around this limitation was for “interested volunteers” to resign, en masse, from their militia units and then sign up — again en masse — as a “volunteer” unit. It was a cumbersome solution to a 123-year-old problem.
Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I’ll just tell you: As of 1903, the “militia” has been known as the National Guard.
Well, gee, thanks for that little history lesson, professor!
They are “well regulated,” and when called to do so as they have been these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not exist.
Apparently, this bag of fuck still doesn’t comprehend the English language. Not only does the militia exist, but it has several compositions and classes, and it is not just the National Guard.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Did we forget that little bit?
Or are we so frothing in our zeal to take a large, steaming dump on the very rights and freedoms we swore to defend, that we simply did what we accused Scalia of doing – being ignorant?
Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use.
I still remember the overweight, bald Lieutenant Colonel, at my MRX during the Bosnia deployment, who asked me how you lock the bolt to the rear on an M-16 A2 rifle. I also remember another bald, stupid LTC who argued with me about the spelling of “en route” (he claimed it was one word and demanded I change it in a report I was writing). So frankly, the fact that he’s somehow made O-5 doesn’t impress me. I don’t put too much stock in what this douchenugget claims must happen. I know that the vast majority of gun owners are trained and educated. I know that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible human beings, who understand and respect these tools. And I know that even professionals, who use these tools in their jobs have negligent discharges at unacceptable rates.
Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.
In defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic? The same enemies who would relieve the People of their rights? That defense?
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:
The suggestions are just what you would expect. I’m not even going to quote them here, because they’re so absurd, so unconstitutional and so unlikely to even be introduced in any kind of legislation, that one must wonder what the hell this elderly hippie was inhaling when he came up with this list!
Not only does this cuntlip think that the People whose rights he took a solemn oath to defend should only own firearms no newer than two centuries ago, but he’s too stupid to understand that “a well regulated militia” is NOT ABOUT HUNTING!
This cumcracker doesn’t even understand plain English, but feels himself qualified to somehow advocate the destruction of a basic, constitutional right – a right that he swore a solemn oath to support and defend!
And he’s using his uniform and his rank to give his atrocious lunacy some kind of cred?
The comments are more than instructive in response to this vapid spew. Bateman not only calls anyone who points out his ignorance “deficient,” among other things, but also makes statements that are so blatantly bigoted, one must wonder how this fuckpencil got the rank he did!
GET OUT OF MY ARMY, you puffed up dildoplunger! Just. Get. Out.
A SIDE NOTE: I disagree with Professor Copperud on the meaning of “well regulated” in the context of the Second Amendment. I do agree with his reasoning for defining the phrase in that manner, but writings (particularly by Hamilton in Federalist 29) indicate, it actually means well-maintained and trained:
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.