Over at NRO's non-blog, The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez is appalled that she saw a four-year-old boy searched in Seattle at the boarding gate.

As I was boarding a flight from Seattle to San Francisco, it was clear that the gate agent was merely counting, and sending every n-th person to be searched more thoroughly than the rest of us. The entire line was shocked and appalled when A 4 YEAR OLD BOY was selected as a target of their mindless procedure. He was scared, and his Dad was quite put out (understandably) as the security guy asked him to spread his arms and finagled his metal-detecting wand into his nooks and crannies. (Well, his nooks, anyway.)

We were all aghast, but it seems fruitless to complain about anything in this environment. If we don't expect airline or security workers to THINK, is it too much to ask that the Sec. of Transportation think? I don't think so. Isn't profiling better than THIS?

I think that she, and others who think that children shouldn't be targeted for searches are missing the real point. I'm opposed to such searches also--not because the targets are children, but because, post-911, for everyone, they are annoying and useless.

Once you accept the logic (as Ms. Lopez seems to) that we really do need to worry about box cutters, nail clippers, and Congressional Medals Of Honor on aircraft, then it actually makes more sense to search a child than, say, a little old lady. After all, how do they know that the child isn't carrying something that the father slipped on to his person to avoid getting searched himself? Once on the plane, he could simply retrieve it from the kid, and do whatever nefarious acts he could do with a sharp object.

Which is to say, nothing, because he's be torn limb from limb by crew and passengers, who are the real defense against air terrorism now.

That last is the argument that we need to make, and continue making, instead of whining about who's being searched and who's not.

A tactic of random searches only works if it is truly random. Any deviation from that will create a gap in coverage and encourage more attacks, not less. If you know that little old ladies are never searched or that every nth person is being searched you can get around that by doubling up your agents so they will slip through, or disguise them as little old women. A tactic will only work so long as it is continually evolving to handle new threats and to proactivly limit their effectiveness.

I have said it many times since 9/11, the problem isn't too many weapons, but too few. We are a militia as you point out, if the state wishes to cede its responsiblity to regulate us, that is the state's problem. Regulation is not confiscation and prohibition. It is effective control and limiting to those that can exercise their responsibitlity safely. If the fear is bullets that will puncture the structure of the plane, then limit the caliber of the gun or the type of ammunition used. They can make the paper work as time consuming as they wish to ensure that only those licensed and trained for CQB can carry on the planes. Those that are truly interested in protecting themselves will endure the hassle for a fighting chance in the air. Remember, the police are not there to stop violence, but to punish the wrong doers afterwards. Only a proactive exercise of individual power will limit the occurance of violence.