You just did one of the "let's paint a broad picture here!"
I guess owning a rifle, shotguns, and a handgun doesn't qualify for Right to Bear Arms which I am 100% in agreement. I am also believe that people buying guns should have to have evidence of a safety course completed or go to one before buying the gun. I also don't believe in instant gun purchases where some hothead can go down and get a gun immediately and then shoot their spouse or whoever because they are mad. Don't see why waiting 24 hours matters.
No one will ever convince me that the same assualt weapons our military use should be in the hands of private citizens.
So sue me for my opinion.
Then I read this part of your post...
Advocating bans and licensing is the same as saying, "You are either too criminally evil or too stupid to own a firearm of this type."
Which tells me two things...
#1... PhiKapMom did not say that you were stupid, evil, or both.
#2... You, yourself, recognize this fact by posting... it is the same as saying...
I would quit while I was ahead because this is a battle you are going to loose. You defamed PhiKapMom's character and your own post admits as much.
So requiring licensing (having to prove you are innocent as well as competent despite any previous experience you may have), bans (in this case on assualt weapons as no one really needs one in her opinion), and waiting periods (which have done nothing to curb criminals from getting firearms) do not in any way assume the general populace is "evil, stupid, or both"?
See the Brady Campaigns numerous websites for even more of the same reasoning. It all boils down the same. While you are at it, you may want to look up the study mentioned in my Ari Fleischer qoute somewhere above. The study has shown that the Brady Bill did nothing but make it more difficult for your average Joe Citizen to own firearms and no effect on crime.
This is not a difficult reasoning to follow. Are you SURE you don't have a dog in this hunt?