{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/28/2013 4:15:53 AM
29
Little armies ... citizens of the state ... organised ... well regulated.
Sounds like the police force.
English
-
Cops =/= Militia.
-
-
Cops are consist of people hired and trained by the state to maintain the law of that state. Militia men volunteer to protect their state against people who want to tear down the laws. The cops maintain the law, the militiamen protect it.
-
Doesn't seem like a whole lot of difference.
-
Well, look at the Minutemen from the American Revolution; they brought themselves up in Massachusetts in order to oppose tyrannical law. Cops can't oppose what they maintain. Currently, our cops and militiamen co-exist since they're on the same page. For example, let's say that the government created laws that basically made the US parallel with a tyrannical government. The cops' jobs are to maintain those new laws, while the minutemen would need to protect the pre-existing ones. It's like a coin; they're part of the same thing but have different sides.
-
Editado por Garland: 3/29/2013 2:54:19 PM[quote]A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.[/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_system]Cops do not fit this definition.[/url] [quote]since approximately 1665, militia has taken the meaning "a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers." The distinction is because militia members are not paid soldiers, but serve as volunteers on an ad hoc basis to protect the freedom of their home and country.[/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29]Nor this one.[/url]
-
Why not the first?
-
Because they're professionals. They're trained full-time employees, not a group of citizens that gets called upon. They're also not an army or fighting force. Their primary purpose is to uphold the law, investigate crimes, and keep the peace. Occasionally shooting at criminals does not define them as a combat unit.
-
According to the first definition you gave, a professional in this context is a soldier. A police officer is not a solider, and is therefore not a professional.
-
In the first definition "professional" is used to denote someone who is employed full-time doing that job as his primary function. A police officer is a professional because he enforces the law as his primary duty. For him to ever be considered "militia" under a broad definition he would do police work voluntarily as a side venture. Look at it this way: career soldiers are men who join the standing military as their primary occupation. The militia are the regular folk (carpenters, shop owners, mechanics, etc.) who take up arms temporarily to stave off an attack. Professional firefighters fight fires as their main occupation, while volunteer firefighters (akin to a militia) have other occupations and only fight fires when they're called out in an emergency. Police are professional peacekeepers who uphold the law as their main occupation, while their militia-style counterpart would be something akin to the neighbourhood watch.
-
If you see your police force as comparable to an army then something has gone horribly wrong in your country. Armies exist to destroy an enemy. If your police are operating with that mindset, GTFO.
-
People should be the army.
-
Where do you think that stuff the Army doesn't need goes?
-
Army surplus stores, obviously.
-
Read it in the context of the OP's post. It should be blatantly obvious an army - the military force of a country - is not what either myself nor the OP is referring to, but you are alluding to.
-
So can you please explain what you were referring to when you said "little armies"? Because I assumed that was a comparison of a police force to an army (albeit one of small size), based on your use of the word "armies".
-
Also, I wouldn't attribute well regulated to most of the police forces.
-
You can't deny a police force exhibits all of those characteristics, though.
-
Except often times they are not well regulated. Did you not read my post before responding?
-
Your assertion.
-
With plenty of examples.
-
... I'm looking back at your post but I'm not seeing any. Also, would you mind giving me a definition of what "well regulated" is, just so we're on the same page here?
-
Well, how about the two cops that shot up those ladies' truck in LA last month? Quite literally reckless endangerment and probably a handful of other criminal violations right there, but what's going to happen? Most likely: paid administrative leave while they "investigate" and then nothing. Hell, I can't even find an article that mentions the officers, much less what's being done about them.
-
One that has principle and holds people accountable for their actions. Far too often do the police get away with murder, even getting vacations out of it, and enforcing many unjust laws that infringe on us.
-
Editado por Cam: 3/28/2013 4:21:56 AMMilitia imply groups of civilians.
