One guy, 15 years ago, in England, sticks something in his shoes—something that fails to explode when he tries to set it off—and since then 960 million airline passengers in America have gone shoeless. Three guys, ten years ago, in England, planned to put something in liquids. Didn’t actually do it, mind you. Just planned, and suddenly TSA is sending you to Miami without your shampoo. We can be grateful that the one guy, seven years ago, who tried to plant something in his underwear didn’t lead to an requirement that everyone fly nude, but with the latest generation of scanners TSA gets an eyeful in any case. Any time terrorists have so much as hinted at some means of causing trouble on an airplane, the response has been swift, and if anything way over the top.
But now Republicans seem to have gotten soft on terrorists. That is, so long as those terrorists use assault weapons.
“We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS,” [Senator Chris] Murphy said, using an alternative term for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s what they’ve decided to do. ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”
We’re willing to spend billions on precautions and billions more in delays when it comes to airplanes, and we’re willing to disrupt the lives of 64 million Americans a year. Even to address problems that haven’t taken a single life in America (or, so far as I can determine, anywhere else).
Why won’t we address an issue where real people are dying? Why is it that when the weapon is an AR-15 rather than a 737, Congress just shrugs and moves on?
If you think Senator Murphy’s argument seems compelling, consider this:
Murphy made his comments just hours before the Senate was set to vote on four gun-related amendments to a pending appropriations bill — two proposed by Democrats, two proposed by Republicans — that were negotiated to resolve the Democratic filibuster.
All four of those proposals were subsequently voted down. Gun rights advocates might maintain that the difference is that ownership of guns is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, and that—like it or not—recent Supreme Court decisions have clarified the right to individual ownership. Airplanes? Not a right.
But then, there is that pesky 4th Amendment right of people to be secure “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” except on probable cause. That would seem to take a solid drubbing each time you have to pop off your loafers and slide your suitcase through the X-ray.
Republicans can’t have it both ways. If terrorists really are either attempting to infiltrate the United States or inspire lone-wolf killers to go after Americans at home, then failing to secure access to those weapons is like allowing terrorists to walk around the security at the airport.
Right now, all the evidence is that Republicans fear the NRA’s effect on their campaigns more than they do the potential cost of terrorists in American lives.