The last time I checked even the ACLU’s website, not even they were claiming the military should defend a free press, the right of free speech, the right to assemble and petition the govt, nor any other right.

Where are you coming from? Wherever it is, it’s sheer lunacy.

It’s funny that you think the military is there to defend everyone’s freedoms, and yet you attack anyone who exercises those freedoms.

Let’s face it, you’d prefer the military only defended everyone like you, because your hatred for everyone who isn’t a conservative is obvious. Thus, you’d find any reason to want the military to ignore San Francisco and other areas who choose their own cultural paths instead of kowtowing to the average, the static and the “normal”.

Kind of like, you know, – defense intelligence gathering – and – investigations of criminal behavior- being 2 fundamentally different jobs? Right?

Where, you know, the first one the government has always been able to do under Article 2 of the Constitution, provided that the (inherently) warrantless searches involved were “reasonable” as specified by Amendment 4?

While the second one is the thing that would require full-blown warrants and stuff (under Amendment 4)?

Ya think?

I honestly don’t think that people who say things similar to that SF supervisior have ever thought about it.

In order to function as a military the police would have to become a military.

This is ironic, given that liberals hate the police as much as they hate the military.

It wasn’t all that practical back in 1776 either, which is why the constitution expressly made it a function of the Federal government.

As much as anything else it has to do with logistics… which is what the military is. Anyone can learn to operate a weapons platform or shoot a gun. That police have guns isn’t any more meaningful in this context than that street gangs have guns (and street gangs might do quite well in a fight on our soil, when it comes down to it.) All the marching in formation is about getting troops and weapons and support where it is needed when it is needed. Every larger function of the military is exactly the same thing in other forms… moving people and stuff. The few soldiers on the sharp end, are involved in killing people and breaking things but they wouldn’t be *able* to do that without the function of everyone else that makes that possible.

Yes, street gangs would do well in a resistance war on our soil. The police would do about the same. Armed citizens would be hard to subdue.

None of those groups are equipt or prepared to fight anything other than a guerrilla war… they *aren’t* an army.

Just who would be in charge of all these policeman [sic] defending the country?

Local and state governments would be in charge of the police, just as they are now.

You don’t have to be a leftist to object to the idea of a standing army: Libertarians do it all the time. They would claim that state militias could handle the defense of the nation, without the need of a centralized military force. I don’t think this idea is practical (the nature of warfare has changed since 1776), but for about two-thirds of our nation’s history, it’s how we handled war and defense.

And if you want to learn about how the Iowa is not only military history but a part of gay and lesbian history, look at one of my old posts:

http://www.gryphmon.com/2005/07/boycott_san_fra.html

Girls, we should immediately use the power of the purse – and I don’t just mean slugging Sandoval over the head, much as he deserves it.

In other words, BOYCOTT SAN FRANCISCO.

Don’t give them Red State money. Don’t visit them. Don’t endorse their views or politicians. Let them fend for themselves.

So they think they’re better than us? Well, we don’t need that kind of hostility and arrogance. And we sure as hell don’t need to spend our hard-earned dollars there.

Personally, I’d rather visit cities like New Orleans, where our tourist dollars would be welcome in their rebuilding efforts, or Ft. Lauderdale, which has friendlier people, nice beaches and a Bush in the governor’s mansion.

Let San Fran-sick-o starve!

Regards,
Peter Hughes

This is insane, and tends to show a distinct lack of understanding of history.

Half the reason we ended up dumping the articles of confederation was because there was a lot of strife over who was in charge of what, and defense was also a part of that equation.

Just who would be in charge of all these policeman defending the country? When exactly would they have time to train for the defense of the nation part, amongs all the traffic ticket and crime investigation parts?

SF is physically bothersome to drive into or out of. Some residents pride themselves on how they never leave, except by boat or airplane.