"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I

He's quoting Hitler directly.

Everyone else who hates freedom is as authoritarian as Hitler. This comparison is very direct. Godwin's law does not apply. The topic isn't being stretched SO far as to include a Hitler/Nazi reference. The topic IS authoritarians, like Hitler, seeking to confiscate all firearms.

Of course one fascist authoritarian eugenicist organization looks like another.

Godwin's law is relevant when unrelated topics lead to mention of Nazism. Of course it's funny when that happens, not rational, and it's insightful to point out that someone had to make a Nazi reference because they couldn't logically argue their position. But it's perfectly logical to mention Nazism when comparing it to another fascist eugenicist state (or its creation).

One can certainly claim that Hitler and his Nazi/socialist/authoritarian/fascist views weren't entirely wrong. One can certainly argue for some of those views. But I don't have a problem with pointing out that some of those views are shared with Hitler. I think all authoritarian/fascist views are inherently immoral and pragmatically horrible. It's not inherently irrational to remind people that they were the views of Nazis.

If someone wants to argue that the Nazis were right about some things, that's for them to argue. They're free to make an argument that partial tyranny which has historically often been part of more tyranny later is totally innocent in a particular case. It'll probably be ridiculously naive and silly, but they're entitled to their opinion that a little Nazism is a good thing and not a slippery slope.

It probably got moved... when Pie moved a thread of bmine to feedback it took me 8 days to find the thread again

Regarding Hitlers gun control

First, you cannot relate modern American notions of right and left to this question. We haven't the breadth of political difference in this country to do that. Add to this the modern notions of conservative and liberal have changed, particularly in the past 30 years.

Fascism is an extreme right-wing (conservative) ideology. People get sidetracked by the official name of the Nazi Party (The National Socialist Workers Party). The Nazi party was a very small Bavarian party in Germany that initially grew by promising many different things to many different people and absorbing other small parties and it's name is a product of that. Socialism (real Socialism) is extreme left-wing (liberal). Communism is even further left.

Politics in the US exists on an exceptionally small sliver of the political spectrum. The principles of democracy and republicanism (little 'd', little 'r') are left of center.

One way to judge this for yourself is to look at where the ideology (not necessarily the reality) places the political power. The fewer hands it is in, the more conservative, the more hands the more liberal. Monarchy (single person rule) is very conservative. Oligarchy (rule of the few) somewhat less conservative. Democracy, rule of the people is liberal. Socialism which extends this into the economic realm with the state owning the means of production, even more so.

Fascism is even more conservative then monarchy--it places all the power of the state in the hands of one person in manner that verges on the religious worship. That's the basis of the Nazi concept of Fuhrer.

Totalitarianism is not a political ideology, it's a method--Fascists and Communists are totalitarian, the former because that's the nature of it and the latter because only by totalitarian means can Communism be imposed and sustained.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/ … 024520.jpg

The very weird thing about the gun control discussion I have difficulties to comprehend:
Do really so many US-Americans believe that they would and could fight a government with their guns "if necessary"?

As much as I can understand how nice it must be to believe in such a myth, so far I always thought US-Americans more realistic, especially in political matters.

This bs  quote again...
Hitler never said that and the nazis didn't ban any guns.
He believed might makes right and the lsurvival of hte fittest,the last thing he wanted was a society of disarmed weaklings.
Also Hitler didn't blather in this clintonian diction about ciilisation and safe streets like a latte sipping Berkeley student

You know, the U.S. may have higher gun-related deaths than some countries that prohibit gun ownership, but I like having the freedom to gun ownership. With proper regulation, I think the higher death risk is acceptable. This left logic of "must eliminate all chances of x happening" is unrealistic and it is an excuse to unjustly restrict freedom.

From 2010 statistics, the U.S. had 11,078 gun-related homicides and 19,392 gun-related suicides.

Big picture: that hardly justifies taking away our freedom to own guns. With this logic, lets stop traffic-related deaths by outlawing motorized vehicles. Moreover, you're more likely to die by unintentionally poisoning yourself than you are by being a victim of a gun-related homicide.

The risk is acceptable, now go away.

Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/1 … 2010-a.pdf

Is that a criticism to my argument?

no it wasn't 

i agree with you

we can't stay stuck on hard right positions though

we need to move with the times

OUT : I support the 2nd Amendment

IN:  Social Justice requires social warriors!

Actually, Switzerland brings a very interesting question.  Yes, Switzerland has gun rights to pretty much all citizens.  Additionally, Switzerland has near-mandatory military service... so although these people all have guns... they're also trained and disciplined in a way that the average gun owner would not be.