Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

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.


the pistolero said...

For some reason the following question-and-answer comes to mind...
"Why don't you gun nuts go off and start your own country?"
"We did. Who the hell let you in?"

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the "Code of Conduct" signs at Westroads are back up with the original verbiage intact. All weapons are prohibited, no exceptions for legal concealed carry or even off-duty LEO's, who are not exempt from such restrictions under Nebraska law.

Definition of insanity: doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over while expecting the outcome to be different.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

I like it, Pistolero.

Hecate, that is unfortunate (but perhaps not surprising) news, indeed. Thanks for the correction.

Anonymous said...

I have a better solution, why don't we all just stop going to the malls. I fly when and only when I must, beyond that I drive. I do not HAVE to go to a mall. THere is nothing at a mall that I cannot get thorough some other source.

John R said...

Here is Keiths full bio:


Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Making fun of his "hair and beauty business" background was probably unworthy on my part--that certainly has nothing to do with what I find objectionable about him.

John R said...

Not what I find objectionable about him either. He writes from a subject's perspective. He is British and was raised as a subject. He likes the American free market good enough I guess, but fears real freedom. He prefers being a subject.

His early and current sales career sees him doing his best to separate the elderly from their money, not exactly a nobel enterprise.

I provided the link to illustrate the type of low life salamander he really is.

Anonymous said...

a modern interpretation of the second amendment leaves more than enough room to support private ownership of firearms.

the points made in the article are weak enough that the only point of the article can be to froth people up a bit, and it seems to be working. none of the suggestions are really workable, and will only result in new and interesting situations in which bad guys have guns and citizens don't.

that's sad.

advocates of the pro-gun position resorting to name-calling and so on only strips credibility from those of us who want to keep our rights.

come on guys - you can do better than this.

and yes, i'm an anonymous coward, no need to point it out, it changes nothing.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

To what "name-calling" do you refer, Anon?