Ummm, you missed the part where the man said he should be able to do anything he wants, despite the law, if he feels like it.
The hypothetical I set up for him was a practical demonstration of just how stupid that premise was. That is he could arbitarily abrogate the law if he feels like it and expects to get away with it, why shouldn't someone with more sinister intent be able to do the same? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Somehow, he feels that he's justified in this belief (that he's the final arbitor of what is and isn't legal), but that such distinction should only be reserved for him (predicated on the justification "because I want to"), and by extention, anyone he wishes to grace with a similar power.
As for the hoplophobe comment, that hardly merits a response.
In it's literal translation, it means "fear of the shield" (from hoplos, the shield carried by a Greek soldier, i.e. Hoplite"). However, I get the impression that what it's being construed to mean, is one who fears a soldier, or more accurately, the implement of military force (i.e. a weapon).
Funny, but I don't remember any fear of weapons when I served in the Naval reserve (as an aviation ordnanceman, no less!), nor do I remember fearing the three generations of Wombats who were all Marines before me. In that regard, what do I have to fear from a man who owns a firearm (solely to prove an obscure point!) and who insists he will not use it? Is he trying to imply that, somehow, while in possession of that firearm he has no intention of using that he's the defender of my rights?
Laughable.