ICYMI: Merriam-Webster Dictionary Redefining Our 2A Rights!

[RSR]

Semi-autos now "assault" weapons/rifles and definition now includes APPEARANCE, not function, according to MW Dictionary

assault weapon - Updated on: 15 Apr 2018
"any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle"

assault rifle - Updated on: 14 Apr 2018
"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"

militia - Updated on: 11 Apr 2018
"1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
1b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"

Absent are common definitions from other authorities:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/militia
"2.  US
in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
3.
any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
---
1.
a body of citizen (as opposed to professional) soldiers
2.
an organization containing men enlisted for service in emergency only"

[Grendel]

Tomato, Tomatoe.

[RSR]

IMO, much more significant than that.  Redefine words and you redefine the law.  It takes time but that change will incrementally occur...

[RSR]

IMO, much more significant than that.  Redefine words and you redefine the law.  It takes time but that change will incrementally occur...

In the case of the 2A (or the Constitution in general), the issue isn't the redefinition of words, but rather SCOTUS not interpreting the words as the Founders intended.

Not so much an issue of SCOTUS, as so few cases reach that court.  Much more an issue of lower courts, and perhaps more importantly, the court of public opinion!  Not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

IMO, much more significant than that.  Redefine words and you redefine the law.  It takes time but that change will incrementally occur...

Yes I agree here. When you describe items as "assault weapons" based  on appearance and use that as criteria for the purposes of banning them it will have far reaching consequences. This crap was done with the 94 AWB and many items were not allowed simply because of appearance and had nothing to do with actual function. They will be able to ban on appearance long before any case in dispute is ever brought in any court.

[DWARREN]

Most folks would not know a assault rifle if it bit them in the butt!

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

Most folks would not know a assault rifle if it bit them in the butt!

That's true but there really is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The term is misused as any weapon used for the purpose of attack could be construed that way. Properly termed it would read the perpetrator used weapon X to assault the victim and weapon X could be anything from a screwdriver to a large rubber band.
People were just killed in Canada by a lunatic in a rented van. The van is not an "assault weapon" it's the weapon used in the assault.

[Beak Boater]

My 1903 Springfield 30-06 was an Assault weapon............. in WW1. It was also a sniper rifle in WW2. Now its just a sporting rifle.
M1 Garand Was an assault weapon in WW2 and Korea, now its a treasured collectors item.
John Moses Brownings 1911 in .45 acp was worn on the hip of a lot of soldiers in WW1 and WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.  Would that not be considered an assault weapon also?
Don't hear much conversation about these three.
Assault Weapon is a name that is given to anything Anti-Gun activists are trying to ban. Since most Anti's are ignorant of gun types and function, its easier to lump them together and call them Assault Weapons. It sounds more deadly too, helping their cause. The AR platform is the newest poster boy for their hate.
Incremental gains are what they are looking for......even if its rewording a description that will be referred to by million of internet user's when they google something about Assault weapons.

[Grendel]

This ship sailed long ago -after Columbine. It's not like pro-gun groups haven't been banging this drum for ever about designation of certain weapons. The rest of the world doesn't care what the 'right' term is, any more than those general public drivers who drive 'AWD' and '4WD' vehicles and the fan boys who lose their minds over the different machinery being called the wrong name.

If you think MW putting a definition in their book that has been the 'de facto' description used by everyone who isn't a pro-gun supporter for the past 25 years is the tipping point that's going to avalanche legislation upon us, well...it isn't.

[RSR]

This ship sailed long ago -after Columbine. It's not like pro-gun groups haven't been banging this drum for ever about designation of certain weapons. The rest of the world doesn't care what the 'right' term is, any more than those general public drivers who drive 'AWD' and '4WD' vehicles and the fan boys who lose their minds over the different machinery being called the wrong name.

If you think MW putting a definition in their book that has been the 'de facto' description used by everyone who isn't a pro-gun supporter for the past 25 years is the tipping point that's going to avalanche legislation upon us, well...it isn't.

I disagree generally, but not on the whole.  The issue is one of "normalization," or rather "denormalization" (psychology definition of those words.) 
Effectively, what is happening with guns is similar to what happened with anti-tobacco efforts of the 90s...  Tobacco is actually a great analogy and a great playbook for changing cultural norms.  And while you probably couldn't find someone who likes tobacco less than myself, but killing oneself w/ tobacco is certainly a right allowed by our Constitution even though anti-smoking efforts put up a myriad of roadblocks there too....

Point being, if we as pro-2A folks don't object to every incremental attack on our rights (including the NRA's slidefire surrender) we are effectively allowing the anti-gun folks to take away much if not all of our 2A rights in the not so distant future.

[armoredman]

The important one is the definition in the state and federal laws that we live under.

[RSR]

The important one is the definition in the state and federal laws that we live under.

Laws change much more frequency than foundational concepts like word definitions and jurisprudence do...  But they do change as do speech and writing patterns; hence, all the debate about what the Constitutional framers intended to say w/ so many Constitutional issues in the modern day...

[rhart]

It's all part of the 'big lie' - a lie told often enough it becomes accepted as truth. Brainwashing of the American public. See http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/04/daniel-zimmerman/redefining-the-terms-tactics-of-the-modern-day-anti-gun-movement/?utm_source=mail-campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

[Beak Boater]

Good read thanks for posting!!!

[rhart]

Good read thanks for posting!!!

Sure thing. We have to overcome our complacency and realize that what we shrug off as moronic or harmless from Leftists is actually a well thought out and long-term plan to shape the opinions and minds of the general (and often uninformed) population.