Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 14th, 2013 #1
Dale VanderMeer
Your Pro-White Neighbor...
Dale VanderMeer's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere On Your Block Or Road...
Posts: 4,353
Blog Entries: 9
Dale VanderMeer
Exclamation Cuokoo U.S. Commander Wants To Confiscate Guns From Civilians...

Gun control nutter in the military wants to take civilians' firearms from them.:
Army Officer: We Will Pry Your Guns From Your Cold, Dead Fingers

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, the second amendment-hating Army Officer who caused controversy after vowing to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers,” works closely with the Department of Homeland Security.

Earlier this week, Bateman, an active military commander, penned a piece for Esquire magazine in which he promised to push for a total ban on all firearms besides muskets, shotguns and rifles, and shut down all gun manufacturers except for those who produced weapons for the federal government and the armed forces (you will be disarmed, the state will have a monopoly on firepower).

Bateman is president and founder of Alliance Defense Marketing Associates LLC, a “global premier risk management” firm that does work for the DHS.

According to the company’s website, part of the services offered by the firm include, “Homeland Security operational initiatives.”

According to Bateman’s official LinkedIn page, he also personally specializes in “Defense/Homeland Security/Law Enforcement operational initiatives.”

That’s ironic given that while Bateman is lecturing the American people about their gun rights, the DHS is simultaneously buying assault rifles and acquiring billions of rounds of ammunition.

Critics contend that Bateman’s revulsion for the second amendment (which he woefully misinterprets) “proves he knows nothing about the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.”

Bateman’s promise to “pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers” was an inflammatory reference to his advocacy for making it illegal for guns on his imaginary blacklist to be inherited. “I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes,” wrote Bateman.*in which he promised to push for a total ban on all firearms besides muskets, shotguns and rifles, and shut down all gun manufacturers except for those who produced weapons for the federal government and the armed forces (you will be disarmed, the state will have a monopoly on firepower).

Later in the article, Bateman says disarming the American people is all about encouraging “less violence and death,” although such sentiments weren’t evident when he became embroiled in an argument with a blogger which ended up with the Colonel making a thinly veiled death threat.

The argument concerned a former senior female Human Terrain Team (HTT) member who was allegedly subjected to a death threat by an active duty lieutenant at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

After Bateman engaged in “ad hominem attacks” against Maximilian Forte, the blogger who posted the story, and was subsequently banned, he resorted to a veiled death threat of his own.

“And I apologize for the future. Not really my fault. But I am sorry nonetheless,” wrote Bateman.

“You apologize for the future. It was worth approving your message just so that others can see the veiled threat,” responded Forte.

Bateman repeated the threat in a subsequent post when he remarked, “And again, Max, truly, I am sorry for your future.”

Bateman’s thinly veiled death threats reveal him to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who claims to be all about reducing violence yet resorts to barely disguised rhetorical threats of violence against his ideological adversaries.

It seems abundantly clear that it is Bateman who has a problem with violence and is most likely a danger to himself and those around him. It is therefore Bateman, and not the American people, who should be disarmed.

Feel free to politely email Col. Bateman and let him know what you think about his views on the second amendment.
Old December 14th, 2013 #2
Mr A.Anderson
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481

It's Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Court

By Lt. Col. Robert Bateman on December 3, 2013

Alex Wong/Getty Images

In his opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia spent nearly 4,000 words denying that the Second Amendment included the words, "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..."

We crossed the line some time ago, it has just taken me a while to get around to the topic. Sadly, that topic is now so brutally evident that I feel shame. Shame that I have not spoken out about before now -- shame for my country, shame that we have come to this point. One story tripped me.

A woman charged with killing a fellow Alabama fan after the end of last weekend's Iron Bowl football game was angry that the victim and others didn't seem upset over the Crimson Tide's loss to archrival Auburn, said the sister of the slain woman.

People, it is time to talk about guns.

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.

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. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting, and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25. And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask me about these things, because it is the law.

And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court.

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.

You do not have to read this full Supreme Court ruling, it is a supplemental. I can spell it out for you in ten seconds.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the United States government, the United States Department of Defense, the United States Army, or any other official body. As for the NRA, they can sit on it. (Sorry, I grew up with Happy Days. "Sit on it" means something to those of my generation.) [email protected].

Read more: Bateman On Guns - It's Time We Talk About Guns - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at
Old December 14th, 2013 #3
Mr A.Anderson
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481

A letter I wrote to my state legislators.

I am writing you about two bills that have been introduced in the Pennsylvania House and Senate, SB 435 and HB 517, by your fellow legislators. If you are not familiar with these two bills, they are Pennsylvania Assault Weapon bans.

I am not going to cite FBI crime statistics that indicate what type of firearms are used in the vast majority of crimes, studies that have been conducted on how little a gun ban effects violent crime rates, or reference the statistically rare tragedies of mass shootings. I am not going to argue the negligible impact on reduced gun violence such bans have in reality. I am not going to go down the road of arguing against “feel good laws” that are legislative emotional responses to a tragedy.

I am not going to argue about what type of firearm a person should have to defend themselves against a criminal. I am not going to argue about what type of firearm a person uses for sporting purposes such as hunting and recreational shooting. I am not writing you about the merits of “common sense gun reform” or closing supposed loopholes in the law. I’m not here to tell you about the rich Pennsylvania tradition of responsible firearm ownership. I am not going to explain how many Pennsylvanians would be instantly made criminals by the passing of these proposed bills.

There are many residents who are much more qualified than I to do so. I am not a highly educated man. I consider myself an average Pennsylvanian. I am a simple man, working middle class, with a family, and believe in the Rights endowed upon us by our Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence and ratified by the Constitution of the United States and further by the Bill of Rights.

I am writing you to answer the oft asked question that too many shy from answering.

“What does anybody need with an assault weapon and high capacity magazines?”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new Government.”

This country was forged by the blood of average men who were willing to die to throw off the shackles of an oppressive government. The first shots in the Revolutionary War were not a direct result of taxation without representation. The battle at Lexington Common occurred when the tyrannical British government tried to disarm the citizens by confiscating their guns and limiting the People’s ability to fight against them.

The Founding Fathers of this nation took great care to ensure that ultimately, the People’s right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments on equal footing, would forever be secured when they purposely scribed these words in the Bill of Rights.

“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.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment is not about sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment is not about defending oneself against a criminal. The 2nd Amendment is about “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (an oppressive and tyrannical government), and institute a new Government”, over which a war was fought, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

This is a Right, endowed upon us by our Creator, and specifically protected under the Bill of Rights. No man or government has the right to infringe upon the People’s Right to alter or abolish an oppressive government, by force if necessary, on equal footing. Our Founding Fathers recognized this fact, and exercised that very Right to birth our Nation.

This is a harsh and uncomfortable truth that many do not understand, or are willing to discuss.

As my elected official, I want you to consider the words of our Founding Fathers. I want you to think about the context in which they were written. I want you to appreciate and honor the sacrifices our citizens made to break the chains of tyranny. I want you to realize that legislation such as those proposed are in no way different than the British attempting to enact Civilian Disarmament so many years ago. I want you to think about the People’s response to that action.

I want you to emphatically oppose any legislation that infringes and limits the People’s Right to keep and bear Arms.

“Why does anyone need to have an assault weapon?” For the exact same reason that our Founding Fathers needed, utilized, and provided the Right of the People to have them.

gun confiscation, kwan, liberal whore, millitary nutter, second amendment


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.
Page generated in 0.09445 seconds.