None of my weapons would be used for assault, but might need to be used against a foe with good equipment. I prefer that I still, and forevermore, be allowed to match any opponent as I define it, not as the left defines it. I call it a "balanced approach", and "pro choice" as to the methods needed to defend myself.
I don’t believe you can get people to not use the word assault rifle.
But you may be able to change the functional definition.
Sort of like the word axe. An axe could be and has been used to chop people into pieces but you think of chopping wood for winter or a fireman’s axe when the word is used.
If we used the word assault rifle but tied it at the same time to some emergency stopping job the rifle may be more universally accepted.
The assault rifle could be used to stop gang sexual assaults, or stop violent anarchy based assaults on business, or stop assaults on homes, businesses, or people by rioters/looters in times of emergencies. Or assaults on the constitution by tyrannical politicians.(my personal fav)
That way whenever the left mentions assault rifles the public visualizes stopping some horrendous thing about to happen to them.
“Pro Choice on Firearms” would make a good bumper sticker.
Along with - “If you don’t support assault weapons - don’t buy one”
We should throw the trite rhetoric of the Left back in their faces.
I’ve started calling them Defense Rifles with the liberals I argue with. Once they realize what you’re doing they go from stunned to furious.
And instead of ‘gun rights’ I call it ‘right to self-defense’. And that’s true. The gun doesn’t have rights. I do. Liberals HATE it when you refuse their definitions and use better sounding ones.
Politically Correct speech can swing both ways. ;-)