Oh really? How so? What has he said that would give you that idea?
"One consistent fact in our service," said Mr. Sliwa, whose group has affiliates in many cities in the United States and abroad, "is that we have chosen not to carry weapons, even though we live in the land of the Uzi-toting, dope-sucking psychopathic killing machine who goes out with these weapons of war spraying innocent youths, mothers and babies."A Conventional Weapon
He said he was "cut down with a conventional weapon, a .38 handgun," but "had it been an assault weapon -- not just single-shot capacity but automatic ability -- I would be ripped limb from limb and be six feet under."
He asked gun collectors to "leave the AK-47's aside and go back to the tradtional Remington rifle, and maybe some who live in urban, suburban and even rural America can have a little peace of mind."
IIRC, there were more recent statements. That was the first that I could find.
On his first point, Curtis is correct: all Guardian Angels worldwide patrol unarmed, even in really dangerous places like Cape Town and Mindinao. There are excellent reasons why we do this, and in fact we prefer to patrol unarmed. That is just how our methodology works: and it has worked this way for 30+ years.
On his second point, it is a statement of fact: had Curtis been shot with an assault weapon rather than a .38 revolver he would have been ripped limb-from-limb.
On his third point he has stated a personal preference for gun collectors to collect Remingtons rather than AK-47’s, for safety reasons. Certainly that shows some bias against “assault” weapons — but I’m quite unclear how any of this equates to “gun-grabbing”. Did he say all guns should be banned and seized? No.