Webster's "officially' defines "assault rifle"
I don't need jews to define english
well that was stupid.
Guess now we can't rely on semantics.. not that it ever worked to begin with.
>an assault rifle is fully auto or semi
>but this also includes civilian rifles similar but lack the defining feature of an assault rifle
Except (((Webster's))) has always been cucked on guns.
web.archive.org
Isn't the term "assault rifle" a legal definition?
>The latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary
how conveniently timed
assault weapon is.
Websters is currently controlled by Britannica. Look into the owner of Britannica and his family. Quite the (((coincidence))) indeed.
I wouldn't rely on a dictionary by a short, negroid, 80's sitcom star.
nice try kikes, websters is garbage
Envisage my astonishment.
(also there's an old thread in the archive about all this from last week)
>a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
So by that definition, this is an assault weapon despite being legal in California. Well, at least everyone can agree, it's purely a cosmetic definition.
my fudd AR15 in realtree camo was designed for sporting use
>CHECKMATE JOOS
assault rifle, evidently.
I cannot take a publication seriously that portrays and defines "staycation" as a legitimate word.
>"Uh - uh uh ! But an assault rifle is more deadly than other guns!"
>Dictionary just defines it as a cosmetic similarity
That seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
>implying its black texture does not give it +15% spirit damage and -5% speed condition by making target afraid
Don't forget the plantain clip giving it +11 against defensive spells!
Actually, both defining features, since "resembling" doesn't require it to be an intermediate cartridge.
But as points out, it's certainly no worse than their previous definitions, which didn't even obliquely address the cartridge issue with "intermediate-range".
I wasted time on the wayback machine so you don't have to:
From the first capture in 2009 through May 2013:
>any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
From Oct 2013 through Oct 2016, some variation on:
>Simple Definition: a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military
>Full Definition: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
From May 2017 through today:
>any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
Note that the change was months before Parkland. This is a non-story being brought up now because bloggers can't into research.
+20 attack when in the presence of Californians
Oxford > Webster's
>based bongs
what about knives?
I can't see any way in which this definition change is a big deal, or in which it doesn't serve our purposes just as well as any other because it still specifies select fire capability instead of the tard tier bullshit the left has been trying to push about semi-auto "assault rifles"
It's a more precise definition before that still doesn't include any proposed legislative language in an attempt to reframe the debate.
This, if anything, is helpful to us because it allows us to cite a 2018 definition and illustrate that in common use the term still doesn't mean what libs are trying to tell people it means,
"Fully auto OR semi" meaning select fire.
Webster's is not looking to define words in the sense of setting what a word means. Webster's defines things in regards to their general usage. So, a definition of assault rifle including semi-automatic only arms that resemble true assault rifles and labeling them as such is a necessary addition. If I bothered, I could easily find citations to at least the early 80's, if not earlier, describing semi-automatic black rifles as assault rifles.
It doesn't mean that I want them banned - for fuck's sake, if I had it my way the NFA would be repealed tomorrow and my AR's would have fun switches as soon as possible - but when your job is to describe English as it is used, no matter how much screaming you make over it will not change the fact that it is used often enough in that manner to warrant a definition.
Words change. Find another hill to die on than "what is an assault rifle". Die on the hill of fighting the actual demonization of all guns and gun owners, not this trivial bullshit over definitions.
>any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
>also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
>actual demonization of all guns and gun owners
But that's what this is. They are playing semantic games with our inalienable rights.
RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
It's not a semantic game. It's literally how it is frequently used in speech. Take a quote from Soldier of Fortune in the August 1986 issue:
>In this age of military-looking
civilian assault rifles, it's only natural
that shotguns should get into the act. (Page 32)
Several ads in the same issue for the brand-new laser sights (woo!) mention assault rifles, yet are clearly aimed towards civilian buyers - when they would not be ones in general putting them fully automatic arms.
>Fits STANDARD Weaver mount - adaptable to any sports or assault rifle - easily moved from weapon to weapon (Page 134)
From a definer's perspective, this use in published, edited prose, among many others, implies an accepted definition that includes semi-automatic arms resembling select-fire military arms.
And that's from Soldier of Fortune! In the fucking 80's! Frankly, the definition should have been changed all the way back then.
Just to reedit for clarity, because I copied off of a PDF:
>In this age of military-looking civilian assault rifles, it's only natural that shotguns should get into the act. (Page 32)
How can a definition of a word contain the word itself?
It's because in this word phrase the "assault" part is really the part that requires clarity, not the rifle. Rifle pretty unambiguously refers to the noun, sense 1a:
>a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore
Whereas "assault" here is... unusual, to say the least, largely because it is a translation from the German "sturm", and more specifically in the sense of how "sturm" was added as a prefix to many German pieces of equipment to imply their use in forward, fluid combat ala the Sturmtruppen of World War I, e.g. the Sturmgeschutz (assault gun) or Sturmgewehr (assault rifle).
You're not wrong, but the definition was slipping from
>select-fire intermediate-cartridge rifles
to either
>select-fire, intermediate cartridge rifles, or semi-auto versions of such select-fire rifles
or
>semi-auto or select-fire, intermediate-cartridge rifles
The perverted thing about the new grabber definition was that it had nothing to do with capabilities (i.e. intermediate cartridge) and everything to do with appearance. Merriam-Webster's new definition, by going with
>resembles a military assault rifle
is following that definition, not the one that actual gun people have been loosely using since the '80s.
.... except that it is unambiguous that in that sense it has been in considerable use since the 80's, even if it is not by the gun community itself.
For a less politicized example, view the usage of the word "crash" in airplane accidents and incidents. Most pilots are wary of the word, and think of it as overused and hyperbolic - however, the flying public can refer to gear-up landing as a crash. However, the wide use of the less nuanced and less correct terminology means that a dictionary writer, when going through a re-edit of a dictionary, will have to contend with the fact that despite its disputed use in the community it most directly affects the word has taken on a broader meaning.
I should probably add as clarification: Just because it is in Webster's doesn't mean that you have to necessarily accept the definition, just try to understand why people whom have the job of describing how English is used would have to include a controversial definition.
What I read from this definition is if a rifle is strictly designed and manufactured for the civilian market and not any military markets than it cannot be an assault rifle. Right?
This.
>assault rifle: an assault rifle. also anything that look like an assault rifle lol
No it fucking hasn't. In the '80s, people weren't calling semi-auto versions of SMGs or M1 carbines assault rifles. The only things that were routinely getting called "assault rifles" were semi-auto versions of assault rifles. Look at your actual quotes, and the guns they're actually referring to.
We changed the definition of a racist to a white person who perfers his people and does not race mix with others.
Also if they call someone Jewish they are Nazi-Fascists!
no u
It is not.
proof we're living in Oceania. They're actually changing language, to meet political demands.
>Webster's
Stopped reading there.
>; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
Whelp it's official; get ready for sweeping gun bans and confiscation.
In other words, it's just a more detailed version of their 40 year-old entry.
This. Fucking k politicizing everything. It's how dictionaries are made.
When in doubt, always believe the Oxford Dictionary. Plus I'm pretty sure that the OED entry in a hundred years would reflect lots of citations from sources that correctly define it between 1944-1989.
>literally changing it to be a scary black gun
I fucking swear
It's the left trying to change the definition to justify a ban.
>Developed from a submachine gun
kek, fucking jews know nothing
newspeak
fuck websters and fuck twitter.
>knuckleheads of Jow Forums don’t have the brain to see the importance of this.
Let me tell you what will happen now.
Wikipedia will now use this new definition as source to change the page about assault rifles. This means that every anti gunner can now easily claim that assault weapons and semi auto weapons are by definition assault rifles.
This will is going to change the culture war on guns for the worse.
Only retards don’t understand the important of this.
Dictionary definitions are not legal definitions.
They can piss and moan all they want, but if they're too stupid to know the difference, there's no point in wasting your time with those """people""".