Bob Bateman – doubling down on Teh Stoopid

So, there was once this military officer. He wrote this appallingly ignorant essay about how he would limit civilian gun ownership in this country, because GUNS=VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE=BAD, ergo GUNS=BAD! Plus, because of his awesome military experience, he was apparently the only one qualified enough, good enough and honorable enough to be allowed to have modern firearms. And, apparently this genius claims the Second Amendment doesn’t actually say what it says. He was, of course, slammed down pretty hard on these here Internets, including by yours truly, the guys at This Ain’t Hell, and my buddy Mike Williamson.

I guess Bobby boy didn’t like what was being said about him. As a matter of fact, he came over here this morning – not to actually answer the pretty overwhelming charges of douchebaggery leveled against him – but to laugh at the “8 readers” he thought I had. I suppose no one actually taught him that comments and hits on a blog are two different things.

He also apparently never learned the first rule of holes.

But in any case, because of the overwhelming response to his missive, Bobby felt he didn’t get enough, so he decided to pen another froth-flecked essay, which Esquire was thrilled to publish. In it, Bob, as he likes to refer to himself, whips out…

…if you guessed “The Victim Card,” you are absolutely correct!

OK, so let us start with the facts. A total of 2,324 emails came in following my post about guns, so far. I responded to every single one of them.

Well, aren’t you a prince, Bob! I wonder how many of those responses were actually factual, polite or even logical, and how many were similar to your responses on the Esquire site, some of which were homophobic and downright bigoted!

This was in the wake of my essay about developing some sort of rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals and reducing the drain on our national resources.

Lie #1 Bob. Removing all modern firearms from the hands of the People is not rational or peaceful. Removing the right of inheritance and confiscating people’s property after they die, when it rightfully belongs to their heirs is not rational or peaceful, and it’s CERTAINLY confiscatory.

And, as one concerned about national defense, that is how I think about the issue. I cannot avoid contemplating the drain on our national resources of the 100,000+ Americans who are shot every year as anything but a national defense issue. We are a weakened nation because of this, and I want us to be stronger.

If you’re worried about national defense, as you claim, Bob, you might want to focus your concerns on training, operations and maintenance and the oodles of procurement pork Congress has packed defense authorizations with. What you should also focus on is the benefits of gun ownership, which when examined through reams of research are much greater than your “weakened nation” claim. I will quote Gun Facts here:

Because guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes, the cost savings in personal losses, police work, and court and prison expenses vastly outweighs the cost of criminal gun violence and gun accidents. The net savings, under a worst-case scenario, is about $3.5 billion a year.

Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.

The medical cost of gun violence is only 0.16% of America’s annual health care expenditures.

But Bob doesn’t get it. He thinks that we n00bs just want to go bang bang and be like the professionals – you know those military planners – the ones who have no concept of the Constitution they swore to support and defend.

Unfortunately, a lot of people just want to shoot guns.

And a lot of people want you to uphold your oath, dildo.

But instead of admitting that maybe… JUST MAYBE… he was wrong, Bob paints himself to be the victim.

“Kerry Johnston” said, “Are you still in the active military? You swore to God and your cuntry that you would uphold the Constituton. How can you run your mouth about what you aparently know nothing? You are a disgrace and you’re days are numbered. There will be no mercy and no place for you to hide. Fool!”

Now I don’t mind death threats which claim, “you’re days are numbered,” in general, but that is one of the only ones which inserted an inappropriate apostrophe. The spelling, well, that is sort of par for the gun-advocate course that I saw these past couple of days. You can infer what you like.

Translation from Doucheweasel to English: I’m a martyr. I’ll take one for the cause of “national defense.” I don’t mind death threats, because I’m oh so brave and I will suffer for my principles. And by the way, gun rights advocates are stupid.

Bobby boy goes on to post a bunch of badly written alleged threats against him, for which he blames… are you ready for this? The National Rifle Association!

The NRA posted an essay about this assgoblin, who wrote a very public essay about confiscations and depriving the people of the United States of their basic rights, and therefore it’s the NRA’s fault that some people emailed threats to him.

It has nothing to do with his very clear statements that advocate the violation of his oath, the violation of the Law of the Land and the infringement on people’s rights to armed self defense. It’s only the NRA’s fault for publishing an essay opposing him, which incidentally did not incite anyone to violence, did not advocate any kind of action against Bob, but it’s their fault anyway, because they published something that contradicted his “expert” opinion, bashing not just the Supreme Court, but those mere mortals who think they should own guns.

So what do you think about the NRA’s advocacy? Just curious, since their essay resulted in death threats to me, threats of rape to my wife, and threats of abduction and murder of my six-month-old daughter from the people who read the NRA’s column. Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies. But perhaps, if you are an NRA member, you may approve of some of the messages above. That, of course, is your right.

What do we think of the NRA’s advocacy? We think you’re a large, blubbering vagina, Bob. That’s what we think. Let me guess… you think anyone who disagrees with you and dares to publicly state so, is to be held responsible for a few douchebags who allegedly emailed threats to you and your family?

I suppose that’s consistent with your view that the American people as a whole are to be held responsible for the actions of criminals with firearms and therefore should be relieved of their rights.

But that makes you a pathetic tool. As someone said on This Ain’t Hell earlier, “This guy needs to take the crossed rifles off his uniform and replace them with crossed vaginas.”

I would replace vaginas with tampons.

You’re a pussy, Bob. Get over yourself.

46 responses

  1. Well, at least we know he’s a glutton for punishment. What ever DID happen to that “My Month with Gun” person. . . I saw she turned the “Series” into a rather plebean mish-mash of all emotion and no fact, but you’d think she’d have surfaced with another lunacy by now. . .


  2. He’s chosen sides, which isn’t the side that follows the Constitution. To make things worse, he ignores an oath he willingly took to further his career. Both those actions are not those of a good citizen and he’s a threat to liberty.


  3. If the “gun control” people are right that most Americans want stricter gun laws, why don’t they just change the Constitution? If the law is unjust, change it, if you have the numbers to do so. See how far you get with that.


  4. The NRA’s essay did not result in him getting death threats. HIS STANCE is what triggered that crap.

    He is a better projector than Viewmaster.


    1. He’s a tool. He whips out that victim card, as if he himself had nothing to do with the kind of crap that resulted from his missive. He addressed many comments on the Esquire site with bigoted and homophobic remarks. He impugned the service of several veterans. And most of all, he used his rank to promote political issues that are specifically contrary to the oath he took as a military officer! And he blames the NRA?


      That said, IF he got death threats (and I’m not so sure he did, to be frank with you. I can write a bunch of crap and pass it off as rabid emails as well), there’s no excuse for that. Threatening his family? Nope. Unacceptable.


    2. I agree, Nicki. But you are right: it is a HUGE “if”, and he is not exactly a beacon of honesty and truth.


  5. “I hope someone teaches you the error of your ways,” is what “progressives” see as a “death threat”, Nicki.


    1. Well, if THAT makes him shit his depends, I can’t imagine how this uberdouche ever got through Ranger training.


  6. Vaginas or tampons or calling him a douche or pussy are, of course, insults to women, most of whom are far more intelligent and braver than this little POS. He only *wishes* he was a pussy. He is a progressive, which is far, far worse.


  7. Actually this was academic research cited. 2.5 million included an estimate of how many crimes were prevented by merely brandishing a weapon, and had gone unreported.


  8. This spermburglar is a disgrace to every member of the U.S. armed forces, past, present and future. Let HIM come and try to take the guns away from those of us who served and still take our oaths VERY seriously. Of course, that would mean that he’d have to go out and purchase a pair of testicles on the black market and have a doctor sew them into his empty sac.


    1. And yet, ironically, you were too scared to send an email to me. Of course, now that you published, I can send this public comment to a wider audience, which no doubt will agree with you. Which is cool, given your public profile. I appreciate your courage.


      1. Scared? No. Didn’t want to waste my time on someone as ignorant and uninformed as you? Yes. And given your dimwitted comment on the last post about you regarding number of readers vice number of commenters, why even bother. You’re a slow child, Bob.

        Which is cool, given your public profile. I appreciate your courage.

        I sure do love veiled threats, especially when they’re as impotent as yours are!


      2. And, by the way, Bobby boy. Why don’t you read some gun control facts from someone who actually knows something about guns, and hasn’t spent his whole life behind a desk, claiming Teh Awesome(tm) because they’re a big, bad LTC planner. His name is Larry Correia, and you aren’t fit to shine his shoes.


    2. So, Bob, I’m not a member of the NRA myself. But I’m pretty sure if they actually incited their members to send death threats it would constitute conspiracy and violate RICO.

      Doubtless you have documentation of this allegation. Because it would be terrible if you got sued for libel.

      And I’d hate to think you were a lying sack of shit in addition to a moral coward, panty-pissing little bitch and disgrace to the uniform.

      BTW, how did your debate with real Infantry officer Tom Kratman go? And would you like to hear from a couple of others?


    3. I have no desire to send an email to (Master)Bateman. His commanding general, OTOH…


  9. As regards the first rule of holes, looks like dude rented a backhoe ’cause that shovel just wasn’t working fast enough…!


  10. You posted: “But that makes you a pathetic tool. As someone said on This Ain’t Hell earlier, “This guy needs to take the crossed rifles off his uniform and replace them with crossed vaginas.”

    And you use the term, “douchebag.”

    I find that mildly ironic, on a woman’s ideas website.

    Bob Bateman


    1. Oh, goody! Racist, homophobic AND misogynist! You’ve hit the trifecta of loserdom, Bobby boy! Yes, I’ve seen your other comments about gays and blacks too. You’re a disgrace to the uniform.


    2. Bobbyboo, the old saying is NOT: “When you find yourself in a hole, keep on digging!”

      Facepalm Maxima.


  11. Bob,
    You disgrace the uniform, you disgrace the sacrifices myself and my brothers and sisters in arms made to ensure this country enjoys the freedom’s it does. Thing is Bob, Nicki isn’t running a woman’s idea website. She is running a blog from a Veterans point of view. She voices her opinion on multiple issues, and she has bigger balls than most guys I know when it comes to standing by her convictions. You on the other hand advocate taking away a basic right given to all citizens of this country, then when lambasted over what you wrote you pull the victim card. Thing is Bob, any Vet worth his salt would tell you to shove your ideas into your 4th point of contact and spin. You have insulted Veterans who have disagreed with you, tried unsuccessfully to have others disciplined by their employers for disagreeing with you and you have the unmitigated gall to claim to be the victim. Try harder Bob, your snide little remarks hold no water here, and be happy Nicki hasnt decided to hand you your ass in the comments yet.

    I’m a Disabled OIF 2 Veteran by the way, since you seem to like to call others peace time Veterans, I’ve been there and done that. When have you been boots on the ground in the shit recently?


  12. Even the Brady Campaign was forced to admit the number could be correct. The worst they could say was they didn’t think it was QUITE that high. But DoJ stats concur.

    The DoJ of course is obviously a wholly owned tool of the NRA. In Retardoworld.


  13. This may be the first time I have commented here (if so, judging by the company you keep .. Bob excepted …, I am going to have to rectify that).

    Having read a few of the articles about the afore mentioned officer and a gentleman, along with seeing his rapier like wit, in print; his sterling logic as to what should be done to bring the level of injuries/deaths due to firearms down, and his keen grasp of what might constitute “national defense issues”. I wonder his understanding of the concept of “Posse Comitatus” is, but I bet I could make a pretty good educated guess.

    Sir, you are a disgrace to the uniform, to the branch of service and your fellow officers, and (if you ever did) have no clue as to what it means to honor the oath you took.

    This old retired Sailor really wonders how you are able to navigate down the street, let alone through life, being your head is so firmly, and so deeply stuck up your ass.


    1. BTW – not the first time you’ve commented, since you didn’t get moderated. Everyone does the first time they leave a comment. But it had to have been a while, so welcome back!🙂


  14. I meant to “strike” …and a gentleman….apparently no html tags are allowed.


    1. Fixed it for ya!🙂


  15. Aaaand progressives’ true tyrannical fascistic colors show, in Bateman’s comments! This Bateman character is despicable. Pathetic wannabe dictator with delusions of relevance– who also happens to be in violation of his Oath. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao are doing back-flips in their graves laughing at this inept, pompous little n00b.


  16. Sooner or later, the military will kick him to the curb.

    It is entirely possible he will one day set foot on American soil again, too.

    Given the nature of his dysfunction, it is also likely that a real solider who knew he was coming back to the States would let everyone know he was on his way and where he would be landing.

    This stream of events, should they take place some day in the future, would make it a real possibility to locate him and discuss these things in person.


    1. This will just give him more of an opportunity to whine how violent gun owners are, how he’s oh-so-victimized and how he’s being threatened. I wouldn’t bother. It’s quite obvious he’s not interested in having a real debate about guns, judging from his comments to Tom Kratman.


      1. Talking to him is violent?

        Not sure what you mean.


        1. No, I didn’t say *I* found it violent. I said he will take it as an implied threat.


  17. “A woman’s ideas site”?

    If that’s what he took away from the masthead, then he’s really not the sharpest crayon in the box, is he?


    1. I think that would be an understatement!


    2. He’s not using crayons…


  18. Either way, it’s odd hearing this boob say he wants to curtail violence and saying the best way to do it is to start a bloody civil war in which surely at least 10,000,000 people would die.

    At 18,000 “gun related deaths” per year (not counting suicides as doing so is stupid), it would take 555 years to kill as many Americans as he wants to kill in one bloody year.

    What a guy.


  19. Nicki, Just checking to see if it is working now…LcORWN here


    1. Yep. You’re good!


  20. How about Bob putting his money where his mouth is and have him volunteer to do unarmed night patrols, on foot, in ghettos of the Dimocrat Progressive Socialist-controlled shitholes around the U.S. and see how long he lasts, as he would have the rest of the citizens go through life? Oh, wait, that would entail having a pair of testicles hanging where his tampon string normally resides. Never mind.


  21. Mr. Bateman has been challenged, repeatedly, to post evidence (screen-shots will do) of these “death threats”.

    He has notably failed to do so. Draw your own conclusions.


    1. Yeah. He wants my email instead. Snarf.


  22. What a bag of used douche! He can’t carry an honest debate, so attacks those who have service that has seen them outside the wire — a place he’s never been. I do hope that a competent JAG-type is looking at the obvious UCMJ violation. As for his demand for e-mail, given how parsimonious he has been with truth and accuracy, I have to laugh. Sad that for someone claiming to be infantry that he attacks those who are infantry, and that he has somehow apparently missed any combat deployment in the last ten years? Wonder what his ad hom to me will be since I have more time outside the wire as a civilian than he does in uniform?

    Used-Douche: First rule is that when you hit bottom, don’t commence mining operations to go deeper. Your ignorance on multiple topics, from the Constitution to web sites is abysmal, and you would do well not to show it to the world like this.


  23. LTC Bateman, I thank you for your service to the nation when you wore the uniform. I spent 24 years in similar service, retiring this month as a Major. I served many LTC’s as their chaplain – including one in combat. I’m proud of my service because of the caliber of people I loved, cried with, embraced, and walked through so many painful ordeals.

    The issue here seems rather simple: how do we reduce gun violence? If I read you correctly, you advocate the use of force to take away arms from people so that the same government can manage who gets them. The formula? Fewer guns in the population=less gun violence.

    Interesting enough, there is a current laboratory using this approach to handle this very problem. It’s called Chicago. Notice that the innocent civilian in Chicago cannot legally carry a firearm for self-protection, leaving her/him at the mercy of the criminal, who doesn’t have any respect for law. The results are hardly unexpected: the highest crime (especially murder) rates in the country. Oh, and there’s lots of gun violence. Lots of it. Lots and lots of it.

    May I humbly suggest, sir, that this approach is an epic failure and that another solution is needed.

    I remain your servant to the Nation, and her sons and daughters in perpetuity.



    1. Well said, Major McNeely.


  24. the Irony.
    We are encouraged to support the muslim majority and ovrelook the few radicals who appear,
    But ,we are also encouraged to condemn fire arms due to those idiots that misuse them.
    how is that supposed to work?


%d bloggers like this: