This isn't realistic. Warrants occur relatively early in the investigative process and are often the first indication a target has that they're under investigation. An adversarial warrant process would simply result in the destruction of most evidence.
A good way to prosecute your side of this argument would be to point out any country in the world that has an adversarial warrant system and how well it works. I'm unfamiliar with any. Much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule, meaning that evidence of crimes obtained under false or broken warrants remain admissible.
If your argument is simply that most police shouldn't be armed, you'll get no argument from me.
A good way to prosecute your side of this argument would be to point out any country in the world that has an adversarial warrant system and how well it works. I'm unfamiliar with any. Much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule, meaning that evidence of crimes obtained under false or broken warrants remain admissible.
If your argument is simply that most police shouldn't be armed, you'll get no argument from me.