I guess it was too much to hope that I would convince everyone here about something.
You've tried to convince the group to use a term that is NOT GOOD. The problem isn't with your basic idea of re-framing the debate through nomenclature. That's fine, though of questionable impact.
The fact that the term you decided to use sends entirely the wrong message is why you've received so much resistance.
I do hope that someone has noticed the conversation. Someone who is connected to and understands the connections between power, politics and messaging.
While you clearly have an idea of what the connection is between naming and messaging and political effects, somehow you seem unable to hear what the entire group is saying, which is that WE DON'T want to send the particular message carried by the term you chose. It is 95% as damaging to our intended goals as "assault weapon" is.
Understand that one point. Please.
Some of the manufacturers get it and some don't. Some people at the NRA get it and some don't. Some of you guys get it... and some don't. A mod told me to let it go... to give it a rest.. but he didn't close the thread. So maybe there's hope.
This isn't a new idea. Some "get it"... actually almost everyone "gets it", as in understands the problem with the A.W. name and wanting to convince society to use something less prejudicial.
But the choices floated by the industry are very flawed in that they shove the concept back into "Sporting" uses, which is fundamentally wrong-headed and trivializes the right and the reason for our RKBA. And the NRA gets all quixotic over "weapon" which makes them/us seem stupid at best, and like we're lying to everyone at worst.
And your "patrol rifle" name is similarly flawed, if not worse, for reasons you don't seem to be able to even hear, let alone accept.
If you want to do
something, bravo, we "get it." But don't push this bad choice for a name. That's what I meant by drop it. Your basic idea is fine, but that particular name is death. Go in another direction.