These people use language to deceive, not to communicate. You cannot let your enemy define the terms. So we must firstly REJECT their definitions and then point out how the things they want to ban will not be effective in stopping what they CLAIM they want to stop. Then we need to point out that since the bans they CLAIM will stop a certain harm will not do so and they know that, they must be wanting to impose bans and strip away citizen's rights for another reason.....
Doesn’t work like that. Other than hobby shooters, collectors, and enthusiasts, there is no functional difference between an assault rifle M-16, and a semi auto of the exact same pattern in AR semi style. Both are equally capable, and the semi auto shooter is probably to be feared even more.
Think of it this way. When they say they want to restrict how many bullets someone can buy, you don’t smugly sit there and think “Ha, I’m not a reloader”. And you don’t think you won because they didn’t say how many cartridges you may buy.
Nobody except hobbiests, knows or cares the difference between an official definition assault rifle, and a functionally identical AR-15. For them the difference is it best, academic. They want to take away the rifle somebody walks in with and does a mass murder in the night club. You won’t win a thing by convincing the public that it wasn’t a full auto, and therefore, not an assault rifle, and therefore, completely outside the balance of the discussion the politician is pushing. You win nothing.
If they say they want to ban M-14s, only a fool would roll their eyes and say “Ha, I have an M1A, you don’t even know the proper name of what you want to ban! Lol
Priggery will win us nothing except points among our friends.