NO antigun person is deceived by 'modern sporting rifle'.
I agree. But I do think many rather neutral people are being deceived with terms like "assault weapon", "weapons of war". and "military use weapons". I have had a number of conversations with people that ask why I would need to have access to weapons of war. I explain that the terms are being deliberately misused and that I do not have access to modern weapons of war. I also explain that when I was in the military I did have access to and used weapons of war and that as far as I am concerned the guns currently under scrutiny do not qualify.
EDIT: I know that there is some overlap in the hunting / sniper rifle category. But I do not think there is in the semi / select fire category currently being scrutinized.
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.
No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.