Thanks for the article Dustin. I needed something to fire me up this morning.
I'm not even going to quote this bastard.
You can read the article that has me punching walls here. This guys background...via Small Wars Journal.
This LTC decided to insert himself into one of the most contentious issues facing the nation. Additionally he did so by highlighting his rank and affiliation with the military. If he had simply written the article without those three little letters in front of his name then there would be no problem and little controversy.
Instead this simmering little prick has portrayed himself in two lights. First as a military officer that is FOR gun control (a liberal/urban policy)...AND as a military historian that is using his rank in the military to bolster his understanding of the issue.
I call bullshit on both counts.
The LTC violated DoD Directive 1344.10. Read it here.
He crossed the line, but that seems to be the "in" thing these days. As long as military personnel promote liberal views they're good to go. Support a conservative agenda? Then its crucify them!
I'm not even going to quote this bastard.
You can read the article that has me punching walls here. This guys background...via Small Wars Journal.
Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Bateman is an infantryman, historian and prolific writer. Bateman was a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and has taught Military History at the U.S. Military Academy. He is currently stationed in Washington, D.C. Bateman has authored two books: "Digital War, A View from the Front Lines" (Presidio: 1999) and "No Gun Ri, A Military History of the Korean War Incident" (Stackpole, 2002). He's also contributed to or co-authored seven more. Bateman's byline has appeared on more than 300 print and major national web site articles.And if you've taken the time to read the article then you have already seen the standard "non-affiliation" statement. If not, I'm posting it below...
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.) R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com.My issue?
This LTC decided to insert himself into one of the most contentious issues facing the nation. Additionally he did so by highlighting his rank and affiliation with the military. If he had simply written the article without those three little letters in front of his name then there would be no problem and little controversy.
Instead this simmering little prick has portrayed himself in two lights. First as a military officer that is FOR gun control (a liberal/urban policy)...AND as a military historian that is using his rank in the military to bolster his understanding of the issue.
I call bullshit on both counts.
The LTC violated DoD Directive 1344.10. Read it here.
He crossed the line, but that seems to be the "in" thing these days. As long as military personnel promote liberal views they're good to go. Support a conservative agenda? Then its crucify them!
I was going to read the article.then I spotted Esquire had some pictures of Natalie Dormer so I looked at them instead. I would rather look at pussy than read what a pussy has written. :)
ReplyDeleteI am constantly surprised at how many service personnel (especially those wear a shade of green) are actually quite ignorant about firearms beyond the battery of arms for their service weapons. Some openly just say it is tool and as long as what they were handed worked that was all that mattered to them. This group are politically neutral about civilian gun ownership. (It should be remembered but is forgotten by many that military's legitimacy comes from the government whose own legitimacy should come from below ie the people.) Some though, a tiny tiny minority, think because they have been soldiers they know everything about firearms and are quite vocal about denying them to civilians. I find this group to be technically bereft (they only know what they know from handling one rifle and seeing briefly perhaps those of other nations') but wearing a green suit for 3 years trumps your decades of rifle shooting and shotgunning using a wide variety of weapons from a wide variety of manufactures in a wide variety of calibres in a wide variety of conditions. I find this group to be philosophically bereft too in a political sense they have no understanding of the military's place within a republic.
Did that prick really say he would pry weapons from the hands of dead citizens? Really? Have the people not spoken after the recent 2nd Amendment Crisis? He should shut the fuck up and respect his employer's wishes.
Here is a picture of the new Browning Marak to sooth your mood.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zu_Warriors_from_the_Magic_Mountain
As the kids here say its' lush...........
I will bite.
ReplyDeleteThe militia referred to by the founding father were not there to fight in the nations wars. They were there to fight against the indians and fellow citizens that turned to a life of crime. Quite simply in the colonial days everyone refused to pay for a standing army or police. You might have a constable or Sheriff with a couple of deputies. Anyone want to look up the number of Boston police in 1750 and the total populace?
So the militia was there to protect the people against indian raids and banditry. The second reason the militia existed was to overthrow a government if that government became a tyranny. The next important part of the clause is "shall not be infringed."
So your neighborhood watch is a militia. The posse that caught the men after the Bisbee massacre was a militia. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday were a militia. The men that fought beside William Henry Harrison were a militia.
Don't like it? Fine, the just amend that constitution. It is not hard and there is a procedure on how to do it. Now just go convince a super majority of the states.