[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said this many times. You will not make a case by trying to convince folks the semi versions of EBRs (like that term?) are somehow less dangerous than some other weapon.

That the gist of the OP. The sheer appearance of the gun overrides complaining about the correct definition and semantics on an emotional level.

The cognitive approach is that we have the right to own these weapons because of their lethal nature - not because they are nicer than a full auto M-16.

Modern sporting rifle:

1. It's for sport - well, then you don't need 30 round clips full of cop killer bullets (Joe Scarborough quote). Oh, you have to be inconvenienced at a match by reloading - wah, wah. Don't the cowboy guys have to reload SAA revolvers.

2. It's for sport and what other sporting instruments are so intrinsically dangerous - racing cars it seems today - are they constitutionally protected? Why no.

Here's a note - if you have Wayne waving an AR saying it ain't that bad - it's nice, except for the choir - most folks will see a bad gun and the ad will be counterproductive.

The debate has quickly passed by the auto vs. semi argument.

These opinions come from my knowledge of such attitudinal things.