TexasCHLforum.com

Nothing wrong with calling it an AR. That's what it is. The point is it is NOT an assault rifle unless you paid the fees etc. and got the full auto sear in which case it's arguable. And the point isn't "satisfying" anyone. The only ones who need "satisfying" won't be satisfied until we are completely disarmed. The point is to stop doing STUPID things like saying "assault rifle" and "high capacity magazine" when those are verbal weapons of the anti-gun crowd. We don't need to be helping them by playing along with their lies.

Every time one of us says "assault style rifle" or "high capacity magazine" we play into the hands of the left. Justify it if you want. Go with it if you want. Fact is a 30 rd magazine for an AR is the "standard" capacity for the gun. It was the standard when it was developed. It has a greater capacity than the magazine for a 10/22 or whatever but it isn't "high capacity". It's the original standard for the gun. A standard capacity magazine.

C-dub wrote:I would have liked it better if he'd said "standard capacity magazines" instead of "large capacity magazines."

Yes. We must all start using proper terminology, "standard capacity magazine" and "restricted capacity magazine" or "infringed capacity magazine". Our side does way too much to make it easier for the wrong side by using their terminology. We must stop saying "assault rifle" and say "modern sporting rifle". We must never say "high capacity magazine". We must stop helping the other side.

Makes you wonder what a good "cleansing" would do for those states.