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.