I've never heard a leftist make that argument. Their position has consistently been that the Constitution is a living document, and that it's up to the judges alone to decide what it says according to the "needs of society" - a position that bears a striking resemblance to that being promulgated by another poster on this thread.
In 1961, before FAA-mandated universal passenger screening, there were four cases of hijackings on flights from US airports. From 1992-2000, after the FAA mandate in 1973, there were zero.
Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92? And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?
That logic supports their position? No?
Everyone claims the mantle of logic and reason. Reasonable people will disagree on this issue. Therefore, unless we are prepared to define reason in terms of one's position on this issue, it seems to me that there are reasoned arguments on both sides, and we must all weigh those arguments to see which we find most persuasive. I happen to accept the inconvenience of minimal searches so that others might live. Am I "unreasonable"? Illogical?
Those aren't terribly conclusive numbers. How many from '61 to '73? From '73 to '92?
The first case of a hijacking in the US was in May of 1961. From 1961-1972, there were 132 hijackings, or an average of 11 per year. After the FAA's mandate, from 1973-2000 there were 107, or about 4 per year. From 1980-1998, 23,409 people were arrested in US airports for attempting to carry either firearms or explosives on board airlines. 1300 arrests per year, seven arrests every two days. "No measurable improvement"?
And if left to their own devices, what do you expect that airlines would do differently that would be detrimental to safety?
Nothing. Therefore there's no practical reason to change.
Why does your presumed right to be free from a search upon boarding a commercial airline outweigh the right of others to live?