You have the argumentum ad Hiterlum, whereby any proposition p consistent with Hitler’s beliefs b or actions a is ipso facto wrong. Now you have the ad regem (still working on the name), where any proposition p consistent with the beliefs b or actions a of Martin Luther King, Jr. is ipso facto correct.
By way of Think Progress, and last night’s Daily Show, we have an example:
WARD: I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history.
This obviously suffers from terminal factual problems, but so powerful is the thought of Martin Luther King, Jr. that no one bothers to check what he believed any more. He’s good, therefore he supports any view that’s good. Hitler is bad, therefore he supports any view that’s bad, like gun control (which he didn’t support, actually). But thus the fallacy.
My hypothesis is this: given any opponent O to your view p, your first reaction is to claim that O is inconsistent with regard to p. So, take Obama, whose first initial happens to be O. He’s against arming school teachers and janitors. The National Rifle Association naturally finds this absurd, and, of course, hypocritical. In a recent commerical, which you can see at this link, they argue:
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the narrator of the group’s 35-second video asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s
just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”
Is the President a hypocrite because his family has armed security?
Obviously not. First, the President’s security is provided by the (hated) government; each of the gun-carrying individuals surrounding the President and his children (etc.) is of the very well-regulated militia type: trained and retrained, background tested, sworn to uphold the constitution, serve and protect, and so forth. Second, the President (and members of Congress, etc.) exist in a gun-free zone, except for the police.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t have my 2nd amendment rights at the Capitol building, among the NRA’s biggest legislative boosters. Does that not make them hypocrites? Not really.
Unsurprisingly, there has been some talk recently about whether to ban certain types of firearms. This produced the following comment from a former president of the National Rifle Association:
“And they even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works,” host Ginny Simone said toward the end of the segment.
“Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago,” Hammer responded. “But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.”