On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid attempted to bring down American Airlines Flight 63 by igniting a bomb secreted in his shoe. This event, having come so closely after 9/11, raised particular concern and consequently, the airline industry now insists that you take off your shoes at some point prior to boarding an airplane.
In 2006, British authorities discovered a plot to attack as many as 10 airliners using binary liquids which could initially make it pass security and then be mixed to form volatile explosive compounds. Though there seems to be some question as to whether this is in fact possible, nonetheless, you can no longer carry significant amounts of liquids onboard aircraft.
Eleven days before Christmas in 2012, Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle and fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members. In sharp contrast to the above examples, the notion that the instrument Lanza used to execute his brand of terror played any part in the scope of the tragedy is somehow absurd.
Shoes can be dangerous weapons (just ask George Bush). Binary liquid bombs have been employed in the plot of countless successful movies, so it only follows that we must take every precaution to guard against the advent of their use. Take away our shoes, take away our in-flight liquids, but talk about taking away firearms and you are somehow infringing on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
By this logic, a guy walks into a mall wearing combat boots, carrying a thermos containing liquid nitrogen, a bottle of glycerol and toting an AK-47, the prevailing social consciousness would have us take his shoes away, empty the thermos and confiscate the bottle of clear liquid, but by no means limit his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t feel any safer because the angry man with the gun, is now standing there barefoot. I’m just saying.