Criticizing “thin blue line” people because some police departments are controlled by Dem mayors is like criticizing 2A advocates because some guns are controlled by bad people. Police are just hired guns, for good or bad. They are necessary. Under a good governor/sheriff/mayor, they’re our ally.

In October 2019 I did a Facebook poll and found a disturbing percentage clicked on “policemen.”

POLL: If a judge fails to call a gun law unconstitutional, and policemen come to enforce it, who’s more guilty of being a domestic enemy of the Constitution?

The rest of this article are the following comments I made on the poll, mostly in reply to peoples’ comments.

Boogaloo bois and /k/ memes fantasize about shooting police coming in to their house to take their guns. I think that is wrong headed. One strategy is to bury some firearms as backup. Then give them your home guns when they come for them. This leaves you alive to engage the important targets. Even if they get all your guns, your friend can lend you one afterwards.

The judge is a member of the ruling class. She could write whatever she wants, but when she refuses to rule against the gun law, she is condemning thousands of policemen to choose between the risk of death or the certain loss of a job. Swat teams don’t decide whether to raid a home or not. They get their orders from higher up.
Some of your answers seem to indicate that you don’t think her decision matters until a policeman enforces it. I think her decision is what creates the whole mess.

It’s every judge and policeman’s job to understand the Constitution. But certainly the judge is more responsible to interpret it than anyone.

It’s a lot easier for (and morally incumbent on) a judge to disobey the cultural pressure ignore the 2nd Amendment than it is for a SWAT team to disobey their orders.  Why do the people with the least authority and least wiggle room (the police) have to make up for the sins of the ones who give the orders (the judges)?

The SWAT team probably aren’t even given information about whether the guy really is a bad guy (like another Osama bin Ladin) or just one of us.

There are 870 federal judges (Article III judges). There are 850,000 LEOs (LEO = Law Enforcement Officer). Which group are more likely to be persuaded to stop by a group of patriots? I think it doesn’t take much effort to change the way judges think about their job.

Conservative Christians want to be moral. Somehow defending the Constitution in your home feels more defensive and defending the Constitution at someone else’s home feels too offensive. But is there really a difference morally? Unfortunately, in all US history, a federal judge has never been removed for a bad ruling. Only for corruption and crimes. So it falls to the people to do something about it.

The boss is always more responsible than the employee if the boss gave the order. That doesn’t excuse the employee of course. I don’t want to let the police off the hook. I’m just stunned that I haven’t seen anyone discussing the judges.

(Sorry, my facebook backup didn’t save their replies, just mine, and my account is deleted)

Now, if you think I’m a fed for saying all this, you’re probably a libertarian or anarchist. I’m none of those things. I want a government that can defend the good, enforce the good, and punish evil. This is how every king in the Bible was evaluated. I’m a conservative (a right-winger).

The prior month, I had written this:

The Primary Enemies of Our Civilization are Activist Federal Judges