24 September 2019

Anal Oh Gee

The problem with using analogy to express your point is the person you're expressing it to must first understand what an analogy is and they must accept your premise as a given.

The second failure is far more common.

They don't accept your premise and insert their own givens in the form of their own analogy.

To put it mildly, it's a refusal to listen to the point being made; especially when they cannot let go of their new analogy to see the point you were attempting to illustrate with your own analogy.

Something that must be understood about analogy is that none are perfect.  They cannot be, almost by their very nature.

They are to illustrate the point.

Taking that illustration and inserting consequences which have not occurred, but could, is missing the point.

The gun rights community often uses analogies from The Civil Rights era to make our points, because gun ownership is, after all, a civil right.

Open carry protests have been compared to Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.

I'd like to delve into that.

First.  Rosa Parks broke the law in place at the time.  She was arrested.  The immediate response of the Black Community was not destruction of property on Montgomery's buses, but a refusal to use them; for 381 days!

There's two competing analogies in the pro-gun community.

The first is that the open carry protesters are the moral equivalent to Rosa Parks and the, admittedly silly, act of carrying rifles openly (and legally) is the equivalent to refusing to, unjustly, give up their seat.  The idea being this will lead to a Browder v Gayle type ruling supporting gun rights.

The point this analogy is attempting to illustrate is we just barely have the right to "be on the bus" by owning guns at all and being forbidden to "sit where we want" is an infringement on our rights through the numerous prohibitions on what we can carry and where we can carry it.

The second is that some, as yet unnamed, person has already performed the Rosa Parks role and that open carry protests are the equivalent of The Black Community destroying property in the wake of Browder v Gayle.

In the second case I want to know who Rosa Parks is and what is the equivalent ruling to Browder v Gayle.  Without those equivalences it's not an analogy at all.

The point this second analogy is attempting to make is that we've long since won the right to sit wherever we want on the bus in the form of being allowed to own firearms and be licensed to conceal carry most places and that open carry protests are endangering this right.

This might be a better point if it ever came from someone who had not long condemned the idea of open carry.

It'd be a solid point if it had actually prevented open carry from passing or gotten open carry banned.

The two repeated examples of open carry activism which "harmed" the gun rights community are Open Carry Texas and Florida Carry's Miami event.

Open Carry Texas did not manage to derail open carry being passed in Texas, and they were not mentioned in Austin during the debates.

Florida Carry's event has not been reported outside the local news except by pro-gun sites fretting that they cost us the war.  Neither has reported that the over-the-top carry event was a response to the Miami police illegally detaining people at gun-point at the previous, and much more subdued, Miami fishing event.

If you're trying to draw a causal link between open carry protest and further restrictions on our rights, you have to show X caused Y.  It's a relationship that, so far, does not exist.

But while we advocate for the status quo and don't raise our voices to keep the mundanes from becoming frightened....

The status quo, in Florida, includes black letter law that lets an individual law enforcement officer make the decision about if the exposure of firearm carried by a permit holder is illegal open carry or legal brief exposure.

This status quo includes an unreasonable deference to the opinions of the aforementioned cop, so there's no such thing as legal brief exposure in any jurisdiction which has traditionally been opposed to the very idea of citizens being armed.  Broward and Miami-Dade in particular.

When something is illegal it should be because the law says, not the cop thinks.


  1. You are going Cirque du Solei torsions to excuse the idiots. Have at it, it is your right.
    And Florida Carry members lost all my respect when they couldn't get ONE local member to the Gun bills hearings last session, but they did manage to go "fishing."

    Hey, at least it gives you something to post about other than fixing the car.

    1. It only seems contorted because you don't understand it and won't have it explained to you.

  2. Sooo... Miguel. How many in Florida knew you could open-carry while fishing before the 'Muh Open Carry' freaks did it? How many Cops knew? Lots know now, don't they?

    Open Carry only scares those that are scared of guns anyways, and thus are lost to the gun cause.

    Seriously, up here in Gainesville I have overheard idjits complaining about white terrorists up and down SR 40 in the Ocala National Forest, you know, during hunting season, while carrying into and out of the forest to their trucks parked on the side of the road? Those idjits (the whiners, not the hunters) are the imported jerks from leftist northern states that have stopped any advancement of gun rights in this state. Open Carry, Campus Carry, the whole 9 yards.

    Yes, we need people to travel to Tallahassee. But we also need people active in their regular areas of operation.

    And, as to the wonderful pro-gun lobbyists we do have in Tallahassee? Um, yeah, where's the NRA, where's GOA, where's 2A? Where were any pro-gunners when Rod Scott threw us all under the bus after the failures of Broward County?

    I know lots of people who wrote their state reps and that feckless turdball Scott, and yet Bloomburg and Soros and their money (what, where did all the funding for all those professionally printed signs, tshirts and talking heads come from? Well, Bloomberg and Soros...) were more than successful.

    What I've seen is supposedly pro-gun writers throwing us all under the bus, since, well, Day 1. 1934. 1968, 1994, et al. Whining to us to show restraint, to hold back, to not do anything because we'll lose more rights. So how has that restraint worked for all of us? Why do we not have Constitutional Carry now?

    Why do I have to, living in a crappy section of town because health issues sucks all my free money away, so much that I can't buy a CCW but I need a CCW? So, Car Tags, Meds, special foods, housing, utilities, and, oh, I have no money left. But I need to carry. So why do I have to pay for a RIGHT that is granted to me by my Creator, not by some feckless bureaucrat or politician, who will change the rules as the wind shifts?

    Where was all the warning and politicking when the Dems nominated a friggin anti-gun anti-agriculture Ag Commissioner? Who is now in charge of the CCW permits?

    What have supposedly pro-2A writers done for us, since CCW was passed? Tell me. Seriously. Give us examples of how not rocking the boat has actually been good for us. Actual proof, not vaporware, and then maybe I'll give y'all some respect. Maybe.


You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.