Analogous

When talking about 2nd Amendment rights being civil rights we often attempt to use analogies to illustrate the similarities to other civil rights.

Almost by definition an analogy is not identical to either situation being compared.  It's a bridge that's supposed to make the relationship between the two situations clearer.

There's the problem with many people.

They've decided that if the two situations are not identical then the comparison is invalid, and you're an idiot for suggesting any similarity.

I would like to note that "identical" and "similar" are not synonyms.

Rosa Parks gets mentioned from time to time with regards to gun rights protestors getting arrested.

Ms Parks was not armed, openly or otherwise.  She broke the law.  She's black.

This is not identical to an open carrier being held at gunpoint during an open carry fishing event.

The open carrier was white.  They were openly armed.  They were obeying the law.

Where are they similar?

Both did what they did to try to raise awareness about the civil rights issue at hand and hoped that would lead to positive change.

In Montgomery, Alabama the immediate response was a huge portion of the bus-riding population refusing to use the buses.  Ms Parks fellow blacks supported her protest and hit the bus company's bottom line.  For nearly a year.

The immediate response to the open carrier being held at gun point was the condemnation of the practice.  It was stated that being openly armed is stupid and that anyone who did not join them in condemnation was likewise mentally deficient.

Clearly one portion of the gun owning population is quite happy with the status quo.

Happily(?) we have an analogous group during the civil rights movement.  It was the topic of many sermons that blacks needed to keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves because, as bad as it was, it most certainly could get worse.  Being "uppity" was going to bring the whole world down on them!

Good thing, for them, that the activists kept up with their protesting.

Another analogy between civil rights is gun owning and being gay.

There's a lot more similarity between gun ownership and homosexuality because it's not a racial thing.  Literally anyone you look at could be gay or a gun owner or both!

For an unrecorded amount of time a homosexual had to hide who they were and live a secret life.  To reveal their secret could result in lots of unpleasant things; including being killed for it.  Beatings were not uncommon.  Being fired and ostracized was routine.

It was made illegal.  That it was morally wrong was taught unquestioningly.  Unjustified parallels between homosexual sex and child molestation were accepted without consideration of whether they were true or not.

Gun owners in many places have to hide who they are and be very careful about whom they reveal themselves to.  It can lead to termination of employment.  In our modern age of red-flag laws and SWATting, it can lead to ruinous financial burdens and even death.  An extra level of harassment from law enforcement is still routine in many jurisdictions no matter how legal the owner is.

Owning guns has been made illegal, both by type and completely.  Owning a gun has been subject to laws requiring onerous burdens to obtain licenses and permits to own or carry them.

The moral and practical value of gun ownership has been condemned without question.  Unjustified parallels between the mental acuity of some gun owners has been made because they don't wish to own the right kind of gun, or wish to carry it differently.

The rights of both blacks and LGBT were not advanced by accepting the status quo.

Rocking the boat carries risks.  But the rewards are worth the risks.

If we could only convince some of the people who're supposedly on our side to actually be on our side.

When an open carrier was held, illegally and in violation of their rights, at gunpoint by the police: they condemned the open carrier and not the police.

They ignored this violation of civil rights under color law to attack and demean the actual victim.

These are people who are not on our side.

They are ignoring that no laws were broken by the protestors then or in the flamboyantly over the top response the following month.  They are ignoring that the police department learned to behave from legal actions taken in response to their illegal detention of a law abiding citizen.

They equate other protests with this one, regardless of similarity, claim they're identical.

The goal posts shift constantly and they do not argue in good faith.

I say again, these people are not on our side.

They risk nothing, and wish to gain nothing.

They demand others take risks on their behalf when opportunity arises and condemn others for not doing work that they, themselves, do not do.  You cannot complain that nobody showed up when you were invited and did not show up yourself.

It's easy to complain, harder to act.

I wonder, sometimes, if it's guilt that makes them respond so strongly to others attempting to advance freedoms that they will surely avail themselves of.