"Attack dogs" vs. "Assault weapons"

Ken "Popehat" White has a great post about how to demonstrate how little gun control advocates actually know about guns.

He created a great little analogy to show ordinary folks how gun control advocates sound like when arguing with gun owners.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

But Popehat goes a little further, talking about the general breakdown on rights:

I hear "my right not to be shot outweighs your right to own a gun." This strikes me as perfectly idiotic. But it's no more idiotic than an imagined right not to be criticized or offended, which is far more popular in modern America.

We've lost the plot. We don't know where rights come from, we don't know or care from whom they protect us, we don't know how to analyze proposed restrictions to them, and brick by brick we've built a culture that scorns rights in the face of real or imagined risks. It is therefore inevitable that talk about Second Amendment rights will be met with scorn or shrugs, and that discussions of what restrictions on rights are permissible will be mushy and unprincipled.

This is hardly unfamiliar territory for anybody who talks about real negative individual rights. After all, look at the difficulty I had recently trying to explain that the right to free speech is more important than restricting speech to maybe delay the suicide of mentally unstable people.

.@BautistaBomb @PuddyTat2010 Free speech is more important than anybody's warm fuzzies. If you don't understand that, you're crazy.

— FACLC (@FACLC) December 14, 2015