Oh, very nicely done

Megan McArdle nails it:

Carrying a gun [openly, at a protest] is clearly an attempt to make some sort of political statement, though we may not know what — rather like flag burning.

The one upsets 20th-century leftists, as the other upsets 20th-century rightists.  Yes, I think that works rather well.

Well, the 20th Century ended close to a decade ago.  Can we let this shit slide and focus on more important things, please?

More from McArdle:

I should add that Zengerle asks me what, besides a bet, I would take as proof that liberals are 100% serious in their beliefs about protesters.  Well, I think revealed preference is the best cue, but I would take a non-bet bet.  That is:  what would falsify your belief that these people are the vanguard of a rising tide of dangerous right-wing militia action?

I don’t get the feeling that it is possible to falsify these beliefs–indeed, the rage that confronts me when I attempt the fairly anodyne task of showing that law-abiding gun owners almost never turn criminal, suggests a very considerable emotional investment in them.

This shouldn’t be difficult.  Even the White House is happy to let people carry firearms — in compliance with local law, of course — near town hall meetings.  I’d have thought that would settle it: when the President’s security staff say “Hey, this isn’t a big deal; shut up and let us focus on more pressing matters”, perhaps those of us who purport to have the President’s security in mind should at least consider what they have to say, hmm?

This reminds me of what Dr. Dutch writes at the top of each of his essays:

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here – all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It’s easy to criticize science for being “closed-minded”. Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?

Random allusions to John Wilkes Booth do not make you right.

[Via http://bluntobject.wordpress.com]