1. Do we need security rules and restrictions?
Assuming the answer is yes, then....
2. Should those rules and restrictions apply to everyone, equally?
My view is most certainly, YES to both! If you allow special exemptions then you create a loophole or weakness that can be exploited by any would be terrorist!
There are already numerous different "exemptions", including programs such as the US "known crew member" process: crew, based on certain conditions, can in most cases can pass without scanning and searching. It's not so much an exemption from screening, rather it's a pre-screening. This is part of a risk-based approach to screening, where scarce resources are focused on the the highest risk individuals. Not for the personal convenience of crew, but to increase overall security. Mindless repeat searches of everyone in exactly the same way every time is not the best approach to security. As for your worries about loopholes, these can easily be addressed with "exemptions from exemptions", ie random and/or targeted full search of pre-screened individuals. Also consider that certain exemptions from your simplistic "same rules for everyone" are needed for security reasons, such as allowing armed police in sterile airside areas. This is not a loophole: they are not exempt from screening, they are subject to more stringent screening than most pax, it's just done as a pre-screening.
Further, the mindless focus on certain specific items is a distraction. Israel, which uses highly trained interrogators for airport security, is instead focusing on behavior. Ask people where they work, why they are travelling, why they are carrying certain items, assess if it makes sense, and watch for behavioral cues. For any individual, this "interview" can take anywhere from 15 seconds to several hours. Certain people who are deemed higher risk get more attention. Most pilots don't fall into this category, and can also easily be pre-screened.