Quote:
|
Yes, but there are differing types of language. There's technical terms and then terms that just come into usage by the population. The term "assault rifle" is a specific term referring to a weapon that fires an intermediate power cartridge and has automatic fire capability. The term "assault weapon" supposedly means a weapon that is specifically designed to let one kill a large number of people very quickly (how this is so is never explained of course). The term "assault weapon" doesn't deal with anything technical, it deals with the cosmetics solely of the weapon, as it was made up by the gun control people.
|
I am really unclear on where you get your made up definitions, especially of assault weapon. These were clearly defined by law in 1994 and don't mention anything about killing people.
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds...0of%201994.htm
Under Assault Weapons are descriptions of various configurations that constitute being an assault weapon. These include rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
I am not sure how you can claim something does not exist when it is codified into law at the federal level and for several states. You are going to have a very tough argument to make with the NRA given the obvious evidence against your claim.
Funny how you can claim "assault rifle" is only a technical term but that "assault weapon" is just a term that came into use by the population and then defined it without reference to its legal definition.
However, you seem to be concerned with the validity of terminology based on its etymology and ascribing more validity to prescriptive definitions over descriptive definitions. While I would tend to believe that prescriptive definitions are generally more precise than descriptive definitions (i.e., common language usage), you would be hard pressed to justify a claim of a lack of existence because you don't like a descriptive definition or that a descriptive definition is necessarily wrong because it is a descriptive definition and not a prescriptive definition.