One thing that would help this issue is if all gun rights supporters could come to an agreement that open carry is, first and foremost, a legitimate constitutional right, and one that's worth preserving. That would be common ground that could open a dialogue between the various factions. Simply dismissing open carry as a whole is, in my opinion, unreasonable and not in keeping with the ideals of constitutionalism, which, in addition to being a philosophical ideal, is the law of the land. That fact alone makes it important, because if one law can be ignored then so can the others, such as freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms in its entirety.
Even if we don't agree with open carry, even if we think it's a neckbeard move through and through, it's in everyone's interest to defend it as a basic right, even if they themselves do not feel inclined to exercise that right. Anyone who cares about free speech and the like should care very deeply about open carry, if for no other reason than the fact that it's the law.
Everyone who owns a gun should also care about it from a pragmatic point of view, assuming they care about being able to transport that gun. Even if the current privileges regarding transporting a firearm in a vehicle are preserved, which is already suspect in several states, there are practical reasons why a person might want or need to transport a firearm on foot, or while using public transportation. One example would be a person who could not afford to drive, which means they need to walk or take the bus in order to even buy the gun in the first place, then to practice with it at the range. Currently, that is illegal in my state, even if the gun is in a bag. There is no provision whatsoever for carrying a long gun, and even a permit holder cannot take any gun onto a bus, even if it's in a bag unloaded.
Another reason a person might need to openly carry a firearm is while hunting. Let's say your hunting area is divided by a two lane county road, or multiple roads, requiring you to walk for a ways on the road, or otherwise be forced to backtrack several miles, get your vehicle, and drive to the next area, by which time the game you were pursuing is long gone, the light or weather has run out, etc. Likewise, a rancher on the southern border might have fields separated by a few miles, and he might access them by ATV or horseback, or even on foot if the distance isn't too great. Should he not have the right to carry an "assault rifle" to protect himself from the drug cartels that are no doubt smuggling drugs through the area? And should he not have the right to carry the rifle on public lands while tending his cattle?
As mentioned previously, there is also the need to protect oneself from predators. It's awfully hard to conceal a S&W 500 while hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park, or a similar place where you have lots of people mixing with highly domesticated grizzly bears. Just for perspective, it's common in Canada to see people packing sawed off shotguns for protection against bears.
Also mentioned previously, it's difficult to impossible to conceal the weapon we would like to carry, vs. the weapon we're relegated to carry by the state imposed necessity of keeping it concealed. Why should we be relegated to carrying a micro pocket .380 just because we cannot effectively conceal a full sized 9mm? Especially considering that virtually every police agency in the country has found that full size, high capacity, full caliber sidearms are necessary for their officers to effectively defend themselves. Can you imagine the outrage if all law enforcement personnel were mandated to conceal their weapons, relegating them to low capacity .380s? And yet this same mandate is imposed upon civilians. Even in states where open carry is legal, we all know that does not mean that it's legal legal, as evidenced by the long list of people charged with disorderly conduct and the like, despite the fact that they were well within the law.
Furthermore, as absurd as it might sound to some, there is even reason to carry long guns in public, namely as a preventative measure against terrorism. It works well for Israel in any case. Years ago, I always heard people say, "Well Israel is a unique case; they have to do it because of their terrorist problem, and we don't have that problem here." Well, folks, we've arrived. Will widespread open carry of long guns prevent all terrorist attacks? No, but it will certainly complicate things for the terrorists, and bring an end to the days when mass shootings were like shooting fish in a barrel.
Lastly, at the end of the day, the Constitution and Second Amendment have as much to do with self defense as they do with hunting. The highest purpose of the Second Amendment has always been to challenge a tyrannical government, even and especially if that government is our own. If we do not have the right to be armed in public, that could throw a wrench in any plans to assemble an armed resistance. Armed assembly and protest is a necessary step in the progression of any revolution. Revolutions don't just happen. They begin as protests, which turn into skirmishes, which then turn into an organized resistance.
So, in conclusion, if we can all simply agree that open carry is a right worth preserving, then maybe we can find some common ground and agree on an organized, thought out plan of action aimed towards preserving what we have and gaining back what we've lost. This status quo where open carriers as a whole are pariahs to gun rights lobbies and firearms media isn't helping anyone. Instead of arbitrarily denouncing it as a whole, they should be steering it in the right direction.