3 ms·

> The military also exists to enforce law. No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. The rare exemption is when a state decides to deploy the Arm

> The military also exists to enforce law. No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. The rare exemption is when a state decides to deploy the Army National Guard or Coast Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act is very specific about this, and the U.S. Army Military Police Corps were slapped with administrative actions for violating the act when they intervened in murder spree in Alabama.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else. What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the police belong in this category too; there isn't a difference. Saying the police are not military purely because they wear a label saying "the third amendment doesn't apply to us, for reasons that will make sense if we beat you enough" would be the same error as saying that a newspaper didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" if it published online (and therefore didn't use a printing press). Actually, it would be more like saying that the New York Times didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" because they're "the Times", not "the press".
- tekknik 6y ago
  Except the police lack a lot of the training that would be useless in urban environments. Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. Your average military personnel is more fit than your average cop as well. Not to mention the military doesn’t have jurisdiction inside the US to enforce laws. If you believe they are the same then how come military cannot arrest you (ignoring MPs near or on bases)? Using your logic I can prove many different things that are pretty silly. For instance, since a gun can be used to kill people, and so can a pillow, the pillow must be an “assault weapon”. I have a question for you, have you ever needed the police for anything?
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    > Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. For what it's worth, your average soldier isn't equipped with a handgun at all, and as such, handgun training is minimal to non-existent. Your average soldier is more likely to need to know how to operate the squad's crew-served machine gun, a grenade launcher, or a door-busting shotgun, so to the extent that there is cross-training, it'll focus more on that kinda stuff.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      You’re right there, my comment was more in line with the primary rather than secondaries.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> No it doesn't. It exists to protect national interests. This is meaningless, and to the degree that it has meaning, ridiculously overbroad. Almost all activities that "protect national interests" are not military. The definition you purport to provide here does not distinguish the military from anything else. What actually defines the military is that it achieves its goals through the use of violence. And the police belong in this category too; there isn't a difference. Saying the police are not military purely because they wear a label saying "the third amendment doesn't apply to us, for reasons that will make sense if we beat you enough" would be the same error as saying that a newspaper didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" if it published online (and therefore didn't use a printing press). Actually, it would be more like saying that the New York Times didn't enjoy freedom of "the press" because they're "the Times", not "the press".

tekknik 6y ago
Except the police lack a lot of the training that would be useless in urban environments. Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. Your average military personnel is more fit than your average cop as well. Not to mention the military doesn’t have jurisdiction inside the US to enforce laws. If you believe they are the same then how come military cannot arrest you (ignoring MPs near or on bases)? Using your logic I can prove many different things that are pretty silly. For instance, since a gun can be used to kill people, and so can a pillow, the pillow must be an “assault weapon”. I have a question for you, have you ever needed the police for anything?
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  > Your average cop is also trained with a handgun as their primary, instead of a rifle as primary and handgun as secondary. For what it's worth, your average soldier isn't equipped with a handgun at all, and as such, handgun training is minimal to non-existent. Your average soldier is more likely to need to know how to operate the squad's crew-served machine gun, a grenade launcher, or a door-busting shotgun, so to the extent that there is cross-training, it'll focus more on that kinda stuff.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    You’re right there, my comment was more in line with the primary rather than secondaries.