Fascinating suppositions:
1) You suppose that in that scenario, it is the responsibility of the government employee to provide you with protection, and not *your* responsibility to draw on the bad guy (along with every other conservative in the establishment.
2) You suppose that said officer will be legally drunk after one beer. If that is the case for that particular officer, then he should not be in the bar, drinking one beer, while on duty.
And he, if it is a he, looks about 15 years old so he has no business in a bar.
There hasn’t been a shortage of off-duty cops who get belligerent in local bars and pull their service weapon on the bouncer who’s throwing them out. (What really sucks is that said bouncers find themselves being prosecuted after putting a one-punch TKO on the cop and disarming his drunk ass.)
This also has a tendency to happen at house parties where the homeowner decides that the drunk cop has had enough and needs to take it on down the road.
” - - - while on duty.”
My totally hypothetical example specifically said OFF DUTY Policeman.
We Conservatives conserve bullets for legal hunting of game animals, and rely on our tax dollars to provide bullets for policemen to protect us from shooters.
As a simple matter of the kind of policing that a government at least nominally by the people, for the people, and of the people want, they have the right to ask that their gendarmes be teetotal on the job, drink Welch’s grape juice, or just about anything within reason. In the special case of officer who has to be undercover the rule might be waived. But it’s just a working conditions rule.