To make malls safer: trash the Second and Fourth Amendments

Keith Midgen, of Plano, Texas, knows what makes malls so dangerous--the Bill of Rights. Not just the Second Amendment, mind you, although he clearly doesn't much like it.

There are many Americans who are passionate about the right to own handguns, assault rifles and any kind of semiautomatic weapons in any amount. They cite the "right to bear arms" clause of the Second Amendment, which provides for protection of citizens against oppression by our government.

Yeah--well, insisting on protection against oppression by our government is just plain silly, of course.

It doesn't seem to matter that the overwhelming might of a ruthless, determined government could crush any nascent rebellion quite quickly whether the "people" are armed or not.

Sounds rather a lot like what I suspect just about every government brought down by revolution thought . . . before the revolution.

He goes on to express disbelief at the number of privately owned handguns in the U.S.

Then, he gets to the Fourth Amendment.

If that happens ["that" being a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment means what it says--something Keith clearly hopes won't happen, but fears will], what should malls do in order to ensure a safer shopping experience for their customers?

For one, if mall owners decide that the costs of preventing casualties will eat up too much of their profits, they should at least keep open only those entrances that can be adequately safeguarded by security personnel and metal detectors. If large art and natural history museums in America and Europe can do this, why can't malls?

Second, would it be too much to ask if we would be prepared to submit to random searches, just as we do at the airport? Security guards could also focus on teenagers who appear to be bulkily dressed or, more important, those who wear camouflage fatigues and Army boots.

Where does one even begin to respond to something like that? Random searches? Because, frightened by the "terrorist" bogeyman, we have bent over and accepted the theft of our Fourth Amendment rights in airports, we should do the same at the mall, too? Anything else? Should we, perhaps, be required to apply for permission, in advance, to go to the mall? Should we have to demonstrate a need to go to the mall? By the way, what the hell is "more important" about watching out for people dressed in "camouflage fatigues and Army boots"? Are we to ban "assault clothing" now?

As it turns out, Keith, the solution is much easier and cheaper than that, and it involves restoring Constitutionally protected rights, rather than trampling them. And the Westroads Mall seems (finally) to have figured it out. [UPDATE: Apparently, the Westroads Mall management, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to restore its policy of mandated defenselessness. Brilliant.]

I'm guessing that the aforementioned solution won't appeal to Keith's delicate sensibilities, though.

Let's stop playing out the farce that the Second Amendment represents. Do we really think that America could be a dictatorship or that the Bill of Rights is inherently precarious? If we do, maybe we need to flee to Mexico, like our retirees, while the going is good.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust everyone to vote directly; they shouldn't have trusted some of us to have guns, either.

"The 'farce' that the Second Amendment represents"? And what do you mean by "stop playing [it] out"? Do you plan to go to the trouble of repealing it, or should we just pretend it's not there? The Bill of Rights is certainly "precarious" when the People start bleating for it to be rescinded (or simply ignored). I have a better idea, Keith--why don't you flee to Mexico, and enjoy the combination of Constitutionally protected liberty and low crime you seem to think can be found there?

Keith J. Midgen of Plano is retired from the hair and beauty business. His e-mail address is kmidgen@tx.rr.com.

Go back to your teasing brushes, Keith.