This is an old debate that correcting antigun folks on some aspect of naming will make any difference. It won't. If you haven't noticed the more intelligent antigun folks have moved to just calling for bans on semi auto guns totally. The name doesn't make a difference. The term MSSA - military style semi-auto has now started to be used.
So the AR isn't fully auto and not a weapon of war, chortles the gun person. Oh, says the antigun person, Patton said “In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised”. Thus, gun person - at one time a weapon that was semi auto and only had a capacity of 8 rounds was a battle implement. Now, you claim that a semi auto that can have a capacity up to 30 or even 60 rounds cannot be considered a weapon of war.
Well, you are sunk. Also, by pointing out that the AR is nice because it isn't fully auto, you just bought into the NFA bans as those guns are EVIL.
It is the same for MSR usage. Who cares? I said it before and it drives folks nuts. You cannot reduce opposition by making the guns seem nice and sporting. That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Headlines:
Gun ban proposed as madman uses assault rifle to kill 30.
Gun ban proposed as madman uses modern sporting rifle to use 30.
So the second headline reduces opposition to the ban?
If you point out that other guns are equally lethal, that has been baked in. The anti folks go for the AR because of their appearance and they regard it as an easy target. Then, your point that other guns are equally lethal will lead to an expansion of bans on limited capacity (modified semis that exist in some states and countries with fixed mags), lever action and pump guns. Guns that avoided the bans such as the Mini-14s will be banned as smarter folks figure that out and nuts used them. The same will go for 10/22s as they have been used.
The terminology battle with the risky caveat of full vs semi, is a losing strategy. Folks think it is clever. It is not. It is angels on the head of a pin in the scope of the conflict.
Unless, gun folks can make the case that possessing inherently lethal and deadly weapons (not nice ones) are protected by the 2nd Amend. to protect oneself and protect against tyranny - the battle is lost. No nice terms, sporting, competition, collecting or hunting usage matters. Unfortunately, the gun world messaging sucks in general from the major organizational player. We don't want to redo that cluster debate.