Godwin's Law exists for a reason, man.
(signed, a pro-gun liberal who loathes your bad line of reasoning)
(signed, a pro-gun liberal who loathes your bad line of reasoning)
Godwin's Law has become some sort of notion of mentioning Hitler being a "forfeit" of sorts. The reason this has become popular is because low barrier-to-entry comment sniping is great fun and this version of Godwin's Law makes it child's play. However it is nothing to be respected.
There is a line of reasoning that states that comparisons to Hitler are damaging to society because they necessarily "cheapen" the memory of what the Nazis were and did. I might concede that this is true in extreme cases ("You won't let me go to the dance with Jimmy? You are literally Hitler!" may qualify. Certainly that is at least obnoxious and fallacious) but I do not accept that line of argument across the board. Nobody is going to walk away from the above comment thinking that the Holocaust was not as bad as they originally thought.
Another, weaker, argument given in support of Godwin's Law is that comparisons to Hitler are inappropriate wherever and whenever the subject is less extreme or serious than the Holocaust. I submit that refusing to compare things to Hitler unless they are demonstrably already as bad as Hitler cripples our ability to learn useful lessons from that dark period in history. If we wait until a situation is as bad as the situation in 1930s Germany, then we have waited to the point that rhetoric alone is no longer of use. Comparisons to that era in German history are therefore only useful in situations that are not as dire.
I don't think the problem described by Godwin's Law is that bad arguments cheapen Hitler. I think the problem is that Hitler cheapens one's arguments, unless one is arguing about genocide. Sure, you can draw lesser lessons from Hitler's lesser crimes (ie gun control), but the implication, intentional or not, is that the lesser crime you're arguing about is on par with the Holocaust.
But I am literally making a point about something that I think is truly key to preserving democratic society in America, or whatever is left of it, and I would view the removal of private gun ownership in the United States as actually being a prelude to something as bad as Nazi Germany. I think the Second Amendment is the keystone to all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Basically, calling your boss Hitler because he made you work on the weekend is absurd, but making comparisons between Hitler and somebody like Pol-Pot is quite legitimate.
Realistically, freedom of the press and due process are far more important and in far more danger than guns which are basically just a talking point / distraction at this point. Or put another way, if everyone in George Orwell's 1984 had a gun nothing would change.
Point 2: I'm a pro-gun liberal. I'm also opposed to gun registration. I kicked you around on it not to support gun registration, but rather because you're making my side of the argument look bad. I don't want the people I agree with making crappy omg hitler!11!! arguments because it makes my job that much harder.
Point 3: If you can't show how gun registration is bad (or ineffective, which is my usual tack) without saying omg hitler, you're not going to convince anyone that you're right.
I think there is a sizable minority that wants nobody to have guns, for various reasons, but typically because they actually think it'll stop violence. I think that won't work at all, and has lots of negative effects. It isn't a coincidence that all of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".
I think there is a vanishingly small number of people who actually want to disarm society in order to try and push a Nazi-like situation. But, imagine an America where the NSA that Snowden has told us about are the only people with firearms. Do you want to live there?