A question of some importance is showing up in the furious debate to support the 2A.
We gunnies are guilty of trying the "lipstick on a pig" rubric by calling AR-15s and AK-47s and the like "modern sporting rifles". We have fallen for the perverted BATFE's "sporting purpose" line, lock, stock and bull barrel.
The use of this rubric in this short-range knife fight over the 2A guarantees only that we waste valuable time, resources and the attention span of dummies we need to convince in trying to explain it.
Do we give this up?
If we do, do we exchange the rubric for something real, like calling the rifles "2A rifles", or do we drop all the rubrick and modifiers entirely and just call them "rifles"?
The aim of the opposition is to ban autoloading rifles, then put the squeeze on other firearms. 2A death of 1,000 cuts and all that. That much is obvious by now. With the glacial speed that the SCOTUS would ever decide the question, there is a better-than-even chance that the "conservative" majority might have changed by then. We aren't going to save ARs by painting them pink. We might not even save them by dumping the 'Evil" cosmetic features, such as rails, etc, and putting them back into wood furniture (AKs have wood furniture, after all).
In the case of autoloading rifles, we are going to have to stand or fall based on the militia aspect of the 2A. Is it to our advantage to hurry that day along?
Think about it, but think about some case where lipstick on a pig has ever worked for conservatives. I can't think of a single case. It works for (D)onks all the time, in fact, their political agendas would be non-starters without the concept, but it now seems to THIS 2A defender that we just look so PHONY when we use this rubric.