No. It's not. You perhaps should go back and read what I actually wrote instead of spinning off on some absurd assumptive tangent. My only point was that "gun owners are only law abiding until they break the law with their guns" is *not* a valid argument for any gun regulation at all.
1. The "law abiding" comment was not an argument for gun regulation but a counter to the usage of the term.
2. That indeed is your implicit argument. This goes back to our conversation of WMD. The only reason the US makes a big deal about WMD or similar weapons is based on the same exact logic that gun-law proponents are making. According to your logic, "law abiding" citizens should be able to have access to any sort of weapons.