comment: >
  
  Pritzker (the governor of Illinois) has said that he plans to send the state police in to enforce these laws. When you have the state police coming in to take people’s guns and the citizens and sheriffs saying they’re not going to give up those guns, your state is primed for widespread violence. I predict a lot of people in Illinois will be killed because of this.
  We’ll probably also see state lines being redrawn as the culture between the city and rural areas grow wider. This is happening in Eastern Oregon, Northern California, and Northern Colorado, with many counties in these areas voting to secede from their states.
context: I mean I say go ahead and let the hicks make the case for stripping away law enforcement orgs below state level authority.
  The fact that they feel confident outright refusing to enforce the law is a sign that they are obsolete to the point of requiring wholesale termination across the board, and almost certainly being black listed from holding any sort of law enforcement position or office in government ever again. >
  
  There is no functional or procedural process for the US to become 'separated America'. Unfortunately I fear that the growing polarization and unwillingness to listen and compromise with each other may lead us to a point of open violence. 
  I earnestly hope that doesn't happen though. >
  
  no violence.  just silently dropping people off the bus. >
  
  What do you mean? >
  
  The way to solve this is to cut state and federal funding to counties that refuse to enforce the law. Why are we spending millions of dollars on a militarized police force if they aren't doing their job? >
  
  They don't get to interpret the constitution. That is up to the courts. The police officers swear an oath to uphold the law, and whatever law is considered canon or official is the law they must uphold. >
  
  Yes. The state government has power that policeman don't. 
  The states get to make their own laws for the most part, this is the whole point of the bill of rights. 
  
  Why is it that every other amendment is interpreted exactly the same in every state 
  
  That is flat-out false. For example, some states have the death penalty as a form of punishment and some don't. >
  
  What is the point of making laws if they are only going to be enforced if so and so local elected official likes it. >
  
  It should mean that there are going to be a lot of cops getting fired, but unfortunately, their union will block that. >
  
  None of this is relevant. It doesn't matter what portion of crimes something makes up: if cops see someone breaking the law, they should stop it. Imagine if they caught a kidnapper, but it turned out that the kidnapper and the kid didnt know each other. "Well, the vast majority of kidnappings are done by people who know the child, so let's let this guy go." Or imagine an immigrant was caught murdering someone. "Well, almost all murders are committed by citizens, so let's not prosecute this one." Clearly, that's not a valid reason to not enforce a law. >
  
  
  None of this is relevant. It doesn't matter what portion of crimes something makes up: if cops see someone breaking the law, they should stop it. 
  
  So if abortion is considered a capital crime in Alabama all law enforcement should be required to enforce it? >
  
  Yes. Laws are laws. "I don't like this law, so it shouldnt be enforced even though the majority of people in that place support it" is not a valid argument. >
  
  So you believe police in pre civil rights America were justified in supporting segregation laws? >
  
  Yes. Do you have any idea what kind of society we would have if police could pick and choose what laws they enforced?
  Look, you can pretend that if you were born 100 years earlier that you would be as woke as you are today, but we all know that's simply not the case. So feel free to impose your morality on history, but I'm not interested. >
  
  As I mentioned in my other comment, selective enforcement and Constitutional Policing are key components of modern policing.
  Constitutional Policing as a Cornerstone of Community Policing >
  
  Yeah. You're better than everyone who has different opinions. I don't know why I bothered to argue. >
  
  Personally think it’s awesome the sheriffs aren’t enforcing that assault weapons ban (blatantly unconstitutional since “assault weapon” can mean literally any gun) and if the amount of counties that refuse to enforce it means anything, the chances of the state government forcing them into doing most likely won’t happen (if you get rid of the sheriffs, what’s stopping people from just voting for another one who won’t enforce it?) >
  
  I mean it isn't great it just means that if you become politically inconvenient (or you just piss off the wrong person) the state police can come jam you up on a felony charge. Even if the sheriff swore til he was blue in the face that he wouldn't enforce it that isn't much protection imo. >
  
  Nothing. They are pouring across the state lines from stupid states as always. Those who are elected to uphold the law break it when they don’t enforce it.