And it’s in that moment of doubt that this rabid collection of left-wing lawyers smirks and say, “Hold our beer and watch this.”
And that’s exactly what’s happened as the ACLU has issued a call for police officers securing school districts, often known as School Resource Officers (SROs), be disarmed. Yes, the ACLU wants to take away the weapons of police officers potentially confronting heavily armed suspects intent on killing your kids. Why? Because a gun on the side of an officer sends a “negative message.”
I wish I was kidding.
Harold Jordan, a senior policy advocate for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, penned an op-ed for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Thursday, which was reposted on the ACLU’s main website Friday, that said cops stationed at Pittsburgh city schools should be forced to continue working without sidearms.
“Having officers patrol the hallways with firearms sends a negative message to students,” Jordan wrote. “It makes many students feel that they are being treated like suspects.”
“Places of learning are not security zones or criminal justice institutions, and they should not be staffed that way,” Jordan argued.
This is yet another example why, with as frustrating as it gets at times, conservatives simply cannot abandon the public square and allow liberalism to grow unabated. These are children that would be left increasingly vulnerable in an increasingly hostile and dangerous culture if the left had its way.
The argument Jordan attempts is simply an affront to common sense. City Halls are not “security zones or criminal justice institutions,” and yet they are protected by armed personnel because the dignitaries there deserve it. Banks are not “security zones or criminal justice institutions,” and yet they are protected by armed personnel because the tellers there deserve it. Our streets are not “security zones or criminal justice institutions,” and yet they are protected by armed personnel because the citizens deserve it. And none of those protected feel they are being “treated like suspects.”
Apparently the ACLU believes that mayors, councilmen, bank presidents, and pedestrians are more worthy of protection than our children.
Unsurprisingly, the ACLU’s liberal position is antithetical not just to common sense, but also to science. Bob Owen, editor of the online magazine Bearing Arms, quickly excoriated the ACLU in a series of tweets that provided a litany of real-life examples of how deadly ignorant their argument is:
“Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute directly refutes your claim, calling for armed SROs.”
“Reynolds High School attack in Troutdale, Oregon, was stopped by armed SRO.”
“Arapahoe HS shooter Karl Pierson was quickly cornered by an armed SRO, was unable to carry out his hit list.”
And this merely scratches the surface.
Given that the left always appeals to emotion to make their logically void arguments, perhaps we should fight fire with fire? Perhaps we should ask the ACLU, and Harold Jordan specifically, why he would have preferred for children to die at Reynolds High School, or why he believes that the teens targeted by Karl Pierson deserved to be murdered?
Perhaps the parents of those precious souls on Pierson’s hit list should be paraded in front of the cameras on Good Morning America and given the opportunity to ask the ACLU what they have against their children?
Simply put, disarming a police officer who is in a school to protect students turns them into glorified hall monitors. That isn’t a good use of taxpayer resources or the police’s time and abilities.
It would be nice if the ACLU could be shamed by this kind of anti-science insanity. But any group that sees a Constitutional violation in plastic shepherds and wise men is likely completely immune to feeling any sense of earned humiliation.