http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696041 There are many news stories about this, but here is one from The Washington Post, dated 24 January: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pa-outdoors-show-focus-of-boycott-after-ban-on-assault-weapons-is-postponed-indefinitely/2013/01/24/2a255f9e-664a-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html A brief quote from the article: One could argue that those comments are rather Fuddish, but that’s neither here nor there. So, back to my point: Are we presenting a united front when we call the civilian versions of rifles modeled on what were originally military designs “modern sporting rifles”? I know they have sporting purposes. I know they have utility purposes. I know they are the best form of small arms to hold in defense against tyranny. And I know we have gun owners on all sides of the argument over what to call them and how to describe them. But is the moniker “modern sporting rifle” broad enough to be applied to a cadre of platforms which many supporters of RKBA view as the most effective last resort “anti-tyranny” device on the civilian market and which they own predominantly because of that view? It’s been beaten to death on this and other forums, but the national coverage being afforded this event shines a light on it once again. Plenty of anti-gun people are aware of what was going to happen but now is not happening in Harrisburg, and they’ll also be keenly aware of how divided the gun community is on how it views these kinds of rifles, the ones antis incorrectly but almost unanimously call “assault rifles.” My view is that supporters of RKBA and 2A should somehow link arms on this and figure out what to call these rifles. In the past I suggested the term “operator configurable rifle” for the AR. It’s a term that makes sense in that it’s both technically accurate and broad enough to cover all the ways in which the platform is employed. It also de-emphasizes all the "bad" stuff the antis throw out. It’s not perfect, nor is it the only option. But using it -- or any standardized term -- beats the heck out of fighting amongst ourselves over what we should call them. If the antis can unite in labeling these firearms, why can’t we? It would be a step toward presenting a united pro-2a front, a feat at which we consistently fail.