Sir, you almost had me with your post on 03 December 2013 where you actually tried passing yourself off as someone who might actually support the type of civilian firearms restrictions you wrote about. Clearly a field grade Infantry Officer, such as yourself, would know that all of those things you wrote about aren't even logically consistent. Sir, you have clearly written satire worthy of duffleblog or The Onion, especially given another one of your certainly tongue-in-cheek articles.
Given that you did quite the job getting us proponents of the 2nd Amendment riled on the internet, I would love to take this opportunity to describe to them how you couldn't possibly believe the things you wrote.
First, let me introduce myself. My name is Jason Gillman Jr. I'm the Executive Officer for a signal company in the Michigan Army National Guard. Prior to my commissioning, I served my enlisted time as a scout, and my cadet time hanging around rotary wing aircraft. But I'll just stop there - no one cares about whether or not I was a squad designated marksman or anything. My goal here is to show that you are indeed not the enemy to the 2nd Amendment that you have been able to troll people into believing.
So to start, there's certainly no conceivable way that in serious conversation on the subject of firearms rights that you would completely neglect mentioning the latter half of the 2nd Amendment. After all, it would be intellectually dishonest to do such a thing. In fact, to do so in a serious manner would almost certainly mean that you're trying to curry favor with a crowd that isn't intelligent enough to realize that the 2nd Amendment preserves and enumerates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Then of course there is your "gun plank" for the "Bateman/Pierce" platform. I'll tell you what, Sir: If it weren't for that platform thing and me googling it to get some kind of background, I think you would have pulled one over on this LT.
So let me start by informing the crowd why it would be impossible for you to believe the stuff you wrote.
2nd Amendment proponents of the internet, given his experience in various weapons platforms, a field grade Infantry Officer such as LTC Bateman could not actually believe in the things he has written in regards to the "Permitted firearms categories".
To start, just like no 7-11 has been knocked over with a black powder musket, no 7-11 has been knocked over with an M-107 (Barrett .50 Cal. rifle) either. As for the breech-loading shotgun, LTC Bateman would certainly know that such a thing could still be used to take out a law enforcement officer to get their weapon for more hooligan fun! If LTC Bateman actually supported ridiculous gun control measures, he would not allow such firearms to be possessed by the citizenry.
Last, but certainly not least, LTC Bateman is certainly knowledgeable enough to know that bolt action rifles are certainly not what gun control advocates in the know would want the citizenry equipped with. After all, with decent optics and a trained marksman, engagements of 800 yards (or more) are certainly feasible. Both LTC Bateman and I can tell you that much more terror could be inflicted with a bolt rifle in the hands of a trained marksman than some gang banger hack with a Glock 17 held in a horizontal position. It's much easier to stop someone in the immediate vicinity than someone more than half a kilometer away. Isn't that right, Sir?
Cold dead hands
Sir, I think you should tell the folks that you have riled up that you don't actually believe in this portion of the "Bateman/Pierce" platform. After all, even if prohibited firearms "must" be turned in for destruction, you're smart enough to realize that a good portion of the citizenry wouldn't bother themselves with such nonsense, as evidenced in Connecticut.
Police destruction after case conclusion
LTC Bateman certainly couldn't support this. To do so would just invite politically motivated prosecutors to falsify enough evidence to file charges, only to have them dropped before an actual trial begins, while being able to get any firearms destroyed. Sir, you would never advocate anything like that, would you?
I would imagine that LTC Bateman would realize that such an effort would be futile (if he actually believed in gun control like this, which he doesn't. Right, Sir?). He would be smart enough to realize that such taxes would drive a black market for ammo. Then of course there is option for people to reload.
Folks, in the Army, any officer holding the rank of Captain or higher is going to have at a minimum an undergraduate degree. Field grade officers, such as LTC Bateman, are going to have graduate level coursework. Needless to say, he would have gotten some form of economics education.
Even basic economics would indicate that the buyback pricing schedule that LTC Bateman proposes would not work - the market price for these newly restricted firearms would fetch a much higher premium than 200% (black market or otherwise). Sir, I know you are way to smart to actually think one could seriously argue such a scheme.
Finally, LTC Bateman would know that this wouldn't fly.
He would know that those who take their oath seriously (such as myself) would aggressively fight such a thing, resorting to violence if necessary.
So LTC Bateman, I am correct in everything I posted about your views, correct? You certainly aren't some staff officer who viewed his oath as just a block to be checked to get that officer rank, right?
Feel free to find me on AKO (you should be able to find me with ease) and drop me a line. I would just love to pass along your message that your writing was in jest.