Yet although sellers of beer and sellers of guns may in some respects be similar, in others they are not. Beer and guns are, after all, very different, and so are the typical circumstances in which they are sold. So when there are obvious similarities and obvious differences, the lawyer who has chosen one analogy rather than some other is relying on something that makes the similarities relevantly similar. … Just as the lawyers for the Nazis argued that a judge who thought the civil rights demonstration cases had been rightly decided ought to rule for the Nazis because of the relevant similarities between the cases, the lawyers for Skokie argued that even a judge who thought the civil rights cases had been properly decided had ample grounds to refuse to analogize those cases to one involving Nazis because of the presence of relevant differences.

Unknown, Frederick Schauer - Thinkin…, loc. 176