I am not, in fact, especially enamored of the term "law abiding gun owner." To me, that term implies that someone who obeys a law prohibiting an effective means of defending himself and his family is somehow morally superior to someone who has the courage to defy such an evil edict. I would argue that the reverse is true.Please read his analysis Is 'law abiding gun owner' what we should strive to be?
That's why I dislike the term "law abiding gun owner," and much prefer my colleague David Codrea's "peaceable armed citizen." A peaceable armed citizen is no more inclined to violence than a peaceable unarmed citizen, but he will not submit to aggression, and he will not meekly shuffle to the back of the bus when told that "the law" requires him to.
After my previous post and his description of a man who is now a felon in New York for obtaining the means to defend himself and his family, being a law-abiding citizen may not be what it's cracked up to be.