Previous Post
Next Post

“Unfortunately, a lot of people just want to shoot guns.” – Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, “Your Days Are Numbered”: On Death Threats and Gun Rights [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Someone call the waaaahmbulance. Idiot posts aggressively inflammatory diatribe generally impugning the character of gun owners and advocating the infringement of their right to keep and bear arms and then expresses shock and dismay – and blames the messengers – when the more psychotic responses start coming in. From the Internet! I never would have expected such.

    • You beat me to the keyboard Korvis but I’m in full agreement (see below). Looks like we reach similar opinions on this one pretty quick.

    • He also blamed the NRA for the death threats since they published an article that refutes all his ideas. He takes no personal responsibility for his own inflammatory remarks.

    • Not only that but his original letter was extremely threatening, with comments such as “violence is what I do and I”m extremely good at it” (paraphrased) after proposing the idea of forcefully confiscating just about all guns under private ownership, except for those on Bateman’s approved list – basically just shotguns and bolt rifles.

      Then on the original story, he went into the comments section and actively ridiculed commenters, challenged them to fights and called out their manhood, or even claimed that their opinions were worthless and without merit because he’s a Military God ™ and they’re mere civilians or if the commenter was a veteran, they just apparently served as worthless enlisted men and again their opinions mean nothing – just move on with Bateman’s Confiscation Plan already.

      Everything he’s doing is to generate clicks and ad revenue for Esquire. He’s getting a nice chunk of change from writing these ridiculous articles.

      • …after proposing the idea of forcefully confiscating just about all guns under private ownership,

        To be fair, didn’t he propose banning the sale & transfer of just about all guns, but not their confiscation?

        (Still absurdly draconian, granted)

        • yeah, i think his gambit was “no confiscation because transfer and inheritance are prohibited.”

          …which to any gun owner is confiscation by other means, but to someone like Bateman, it’s a favor he’s doing you.

      • It always been my experience that people who brag about being good at “violence” aren’t. Those who are, don’t talk about it and odds are you’d be surprised what the quiet guy in the corner can and has done. This blowhard is probably the first guy to send in the troops, but the last to go in, if at all.

        • He stated in one of the comments of his original article that his primary job was inspecting Iraqi Police stations.

        • Ah, so he has experience in confiscating weapons from citizen so they can not defend themselves from criminals. A highly trained brownshirt, indeed.

    • Korvis beat me to it.
      Agreed, you threaten gun owners, generalize who we are and what we believe, what did you expect. I do not condone the reactions, but then again blaming the big bad NRA seems, well miss informed. This is simply more inflammatory fodder, for Shannon Watts and Bloomberg to use to vilify gun owners.

      • You mean to say that they deliberately say inflammatory things, just to get responses threatening violence? I am shocked!

  2. So, man writes article about controversial topic and is surprised when some small percentage of the response is vitriolic and poorly written?

    The responses would have been similar if he’d opined the exact opposite, or if he’d written pro or con about animal rights, global warming or any number of controversial topics. What’s the goal when the tactic is republishing the 2 or 3 most poorly composed and most venomous responses?

    I believe that Col. Bateman paints with a very large brush.

  3. … some sort of rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals …

    HELLO?!! McFly!! You’d still have the criminals!!

    • How about instead of trying to get the guns away from the criminals, we just ..I dunno..remove the criminals? I know it’s not easy, but I have a plan. First, you gotta catch ’em. That’s the hard part. Once you catch them, you take them to a courtroom and find out if they’re actually criminals. This is important–we don’t want to accuse someone who didn’t do anything wrong. Then when we decide they’re a criminal, we take them and we put them in this big building with bars on the windows and a tall fence around it and we don’t let them out until they’ve learned their lesson. Not sure what to call that building though..crime-house? I dunno, I’m sure someone will come up with something.

      • Not everyone can be rehabilitated though, which is why the only true way to limit crime from the bottom up is to protect the right of the populace to arm itself.

        Some people are unending recidivists. Some are batshit insane. Yes, a portion of the criminal world (mostly petty criminals) have been driven to that behavior by desperate life circumstances, but that is no excuse.

        When push comes to shove, if you’re being attacked, robbed, home invaded, carjacked, or whatever by one of these goons, you have yourself and yourself only to handle the situation. You might get lucky and the guy may leave with only your wallet. That seems, however, like a poor possibility to bank on. Best be prepared.

      • Several years ago I read that the percentage of criminals in this country who are actually caught, tried (rather than getting a sweet plea bargain), convicted, sentenced, and then serve their entire sentence is about 20%. By comparison, in japan that number is 95%. THAT is the primary reason their crime rates are so much lower than ours. And they don’t turn their criminals into celebrities and make movies about them. Once convicted, they are completely shunned by their family and the rest of their society. Perhaps we should give that a try.

        • Can we get rid of the millions of laws and regulations that shouldn’t exist first? That by itself would help.

  4. That initial article that garnered so much hate was a flame piece and appeared intended to generate there type of response he got. Let’s not dignify it or him any further.

    The right of the people of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed.

  5. Ah, Bateman is DIGGING this! Such is the motivation for a troll. I am reminded of some leading progressives after Sandy Hook calling for the death and dismemberment of all NRA members and their children. I’m guessing the sad, Mr. Bateman is not unaware of this irony, though he will forgive progressives because their vitriol and zeal is in a noble cause, one with which he agrees.

    I have nothing else to add other than what I said last time this worthless troll opened his mouth. Just bring it, Bateman. Begin the confiscations. I’m a bit bored with work right now.

    • Gun rights advocates can play the same game with all of the death threats made by the anti-self defense crowd. This guy has stooped to the level of a child on a playground. Instead of arguing facts he chooses ad hominems. And of course he does so because he understands the facts are not on his side.

      • Were you expecting any higher level of discourse from, of all places, Esquire magazine? That rag is just Cosmopolitan for vapid half-men.

  6. The tone of Bateman is disturbing. He is clearly relishing the threats and opportunity to gloat over attacking gun owners and the NRA in a classic “guilt by association” construct.

    The threats, are not something that can be approved, however the whole tone of Bateman seems to be designed to bate threats then cry fowl.

    He sure seems like a rank opportunist. And his doxing threats come across as self serving and dare I say it? Bullying.

  7. It is much safer to confiscate firearms from “law abiding” citizens, than it is to confiscate them from criminals. Once the confiscation is complete from those willing to give up their arms, then anyone with a firearm is a criminal and subject to be shot on sight. Does that meet common sense gun control parameters?

  8. Bateman is a self-proclaimed historian that knows nothing of history. He is a sensationalist, a propagandist, and has zero respect for natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights which he vowed to protect. I guess that makes him a liar also.

  9. Well, no one can deny that he likes the attention. However, he may well be inviting bigger problems on himself than mere death threats.

    First and foremost, his conduct is most unbecoming of an officer, never mind a gentleman. Is he still legally obligated to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I seem to recall that not all an officers’ obligations end upon retirement. If anyone is qualified to know, feel free to clarify.


    PS: I’d say he’s pretty well qualified for Section 8, wouldn’t you think?

  10. And after esquire started to slobber on Obama’s knob rather than be balanced and focus on their core audience, well, that subscription I had lapsed. Phuck ’em

  11. Hey, even junk mags like esquire have quotas for contributors. My guess is he blew his wad on his first article, so had to resort to call-backs for this one. Hope they only pay him by the word….

  12. What the hell is wrong with this guy? I guess he has the right to be…

    1. Ignorant of history
    2. Ignorant of politics
    3. Ignorant of firearms
    4. Ignorant of national defense
    5. Ignorant of violence
    6. Plain stupid

    Either he is a Manchurian Candidate or a disgruntled military reject. Even if he has true military credentials and is the far left, anti-gun guy he claim, most ex-military people would not act and say what he does.

  13. guys you dont understand where this guy is coming. he is a army officer. he thinks that he can simply issue a decree and all the little Lt’s and privates will hop to and follow his orders. arrogant fucks like this just sit around in their offices doing power point slides and going home at 1430 while everyone else does real work. simply ignore this loser because chances are he will never get full bird and get kicked out the military with no real skills except for brown nosing.

  14. This is the guy who wants to outlaw the sale or transfer of 95% of firearms (everything but muskets, double-barreled shotguns, and bolt-action rifles holding 5 shots or less), right?

    Nothing but an attention whore.

    • He’s just a paid troll. Esquire pays him to stir the pot and generate clicks. If we ignore his blathering, Esquire will quickly scrape him off. They’re not paying him for his literary skill.

  15. From the article –

    “A large percentage of these threats seem to have originated from the National Rifle Association, which posted an essay on their page about me.

    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.”

    First, this guy has no evidence that even a single email was sent by an NRA member. I think he’s a moron, but I certainly wouldn’t send him an email threatening to shoot his dog and pee in his garden. He himself notes that they are anonymous and linked only to fake email addresses.

    Second, even if all 2,324 of those emails did come from the NRA’s 5 million members, that’s still only .046 % of NRA members who sent him such a message. Less than one tenth of one percent. So if the NRA is encouraging its members to send hate mail to Bateman, they’re doing a piss-poor job of it.

    Third, I’ve seen statements and threats just as nasty coming from the anti-gun side. For example, an article in the Des Moines Register last year in which the writer stated “I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control” and “If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.”

    Fourth, Bateman did take an oath to protect the Constitution. It shouldn’t surprise him that his willingness to violate that oath pisses some people off. That in and of itself – a willingness to violate an oath when you’re an officer in the armed forces that are supposed to protect us and our liberty – is a bigger threat than anything some doofus can write in an email.

    Last, there are some jackasses in the pro-gun camp who need to just keep their mouths shut, keep their hands off keyboards, and let other people do the talking. Like I said before – less that one tenth of one percent – but that’s the group our opponents latch onto and use as an example. So if you’re a jackass who writes that type of email, then please, just stop. You’re doing far more harm than good. If you want to write something, write a check to a pro-gun organization instead.

    • Funny, in the majority of cases such as this once an actual investigation is done the culprit turns out to be the one claiming to have been targeted. Wonder if this “col” has turned all the evidence over to the FBI?

  16. If this is the level of Esquires editorial and editing skills as a publication.
    I now know why I have never read a single issue of it.
    Opinions are one thing we all are entitled to.
    But to give this person space and to be so factually wrong at the same time.
    Shows me why news in print as a media is down the toilet in general.
    This article isn’t fit to be used to wipe my butt with.
    It would in all probability irate me there too.

  17. His behavior is extremely unprofessional. It’s juvenile, really. It’s sickening that my taxes are used to pay this jerk. What’s even worse is that he’s in a position of authority and relishes the idea of abusing his power.

  18. Write stupid things, get stupid responses. Or in the immutable laws of the interwebz:

    He who trolls shall be trolled tenfold.

    Threats against his wife and kid by anon idiots isn’t cool, but he invited it with his ridiculous anti-gun diatribe.

  19. Has anyone considered that this might have been calculated to increase traffic on esquire’s website? They get their money from advertising, and inflammatory posts get eyeballs on the screen. It doesn’t matter to traffic numbers why those people are on the website.

    • That’s the reason why I won’t click the link. I hope others realized the trolling nature of the article and take a pass. I think I’m also going to delete the Esquire Channel off my Directv guide. Too bad, I actually like the show they had on brewing beer.

  20. Wasn’t this the guy who was touting that “We (by we, he means someone else because he isn’t going to do anything, but whine, bitch, and write articles) would come and take it from your cold, dead hands?”

    • He actually said:

      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.)

  21. Read his original essay. First part is correct concerning SC on the militia. Totally blows the second part regarding private property. I suppose it would be “ok” to confiscate other property as well. In fact this is what our federal government does (agenda 21).

    He’s in England, a Army lite bird, and wants to impress his warm beer drinking friends to like him and his command that he can get published.

    The scary part and a warning to the masses is….if the army thinks this is legitimate method of controlling crime they will have no restraint when Congress directs them to confiscate our arms.

  22. Instead of getting mad and talking smack, I’d much prefer genuine action to rein him in be taken. Since it seems he is indeed an active duty commissioned officer stationed in England, he has to have an immediate CO somewhere. I truthfully don’t know just where the line between free speech and outright insubordination belongs as regards Mr. Bateman, but I do think that his antagonism has gone too far to remain unchecked. Again I ask, does anybody have real, concrete ideas on how to deal with this loose cannon? I’ve decided a letter to Congressmen Long and Blunt is reasonable enough, and I’m also open to other useful ideas.


  23. So take away all the guns,and criminals will just stop hurting people?

    I just read of a 97 yo lady in PA beat to death by a burglar. I doubt the person who killed her beat her with a gun. I wish she had had a gun and killed the burglar.THAT is how you decrease crime-remove the criminal for good.

  24. I want to know who thought it was a bright idea to promote this man all the way to LtCol.

    I wonder if he knows how many death threats any of the officers and boardmembers of the NRA get on a daily basis? Anyone remember that sick little game some mental case put out a while back? The one whose sole objective was to put a round through Wayne LaPierre’s head?

    And he wants to whine when he, an officer appointed, of the United States Armed Forces, starts advocating courses of action that can be seen as violations of the Constitution of the United States of America WHICH HE SWORE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND.

    • I was just looking at a leftist message board today (Democratic Underground) in which posters were calling for the death of Wayne LaPierre, having blamed him for the recent death of Claire Davis.

      • Can’t say I’m surprised.

        As far as Bateman’s poor arguments re: gun control and the responses … I think the thing that bugs me more than anything else (other than Bateman himself) is that too many pro-gun folks are acting exactly the same way that anti-gun folks act when they are offended … they spew vitriol as fast as their hands can type it out, they look like illiterate morons, and they do nothing to help their cause.

        I absolutely understand the hatred towards Bateman’s words. But responding with one’s own anger and hatred doesn’t help anything.

        In short, I find the level of discourse in this country to be pretty poor. I know there’s roughly nothing I can do to change it. It is what it is.

        • Exactly. I wish we could somehow just get the people who can’t think before they speak or type to just calm themselves and let others do the talking.
          Making death threats or engaging in pointless name calling doesn’t do us any favors.

  25. You know, there already is a country that has the gun laws of his dreams and plenty of brown nosing military officers eager to “pry them out of your cold dead hands.” That nation is North Korea. There their Constitution strictly forbids civilians from owning guns. There you do not have to worry about a mass shooter killing you, brown shirts like this guy in the government are happy to do it for you instead. All for the “general welfare” of course.

  26. a lot of people just want to shoot guns

    Yes, and some of them are al Qaeda. So please, Bateman, go back to Iraq and give them another chance.

  27. But, but, but, I’m a Colonel! In the NYS National Guard. You have to listen to me! I’m important!

    I wish that idiot would have shown up in the Pentagon. He could have gotten me coffee. What a self-important jerk…

  28. Another indoctrinated into American, That is Col. Bateman. I bet he grew up in New England somewhere. They all think they can fix what doesn’t need fixing. He’s a puss.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here