quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Little pieces falling into place. Someday some ignorant lawmaker will use this new definition to prove his point. The ignoramuses that believe him will be validated and action will be taken accordingly. Will it be effective? Who knows, but the room feels smaller.

Actually, they do not need a dictionary definition to define something in laws.

New Jersey defines "hollow point" ammunition as "penetrating," even though all knowledgeable shooters understand that such ammo is designed to penetrate less than other types. Facts do not apply to idiot agenda driven law makers. They only care about what they want, which may have nothing to do with reality.

Just my $0.02,

Mike

^^^^
And that is exactly the reason for this. When the left knows they cannot score a victory, they move the goalposts. Give it some time. Some day the definition of "assault weapon" will be changed to include all firearms made after 1797.

A definition is not law, but it lends credence to their argument. Hell a piece of plastic just became a "machine gun". Ridiculous.

I attempted to see if Merriam-Webster has biased definitions of other firearm terms by searching "gun show loophole" Didn't find any normal encyclopedia touching it, just normal lefty alarmist articles, and some discussions explaining the myth.

This one is good, including the comments:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-gun-show-loophole

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
^^^^
And that is exactly the reason for this. When the left knows they cannot score a victory, they move the goalposts. Give it some time. Some day the definition of "assault weapon" will be changed to include all firearms made after 1797.

A definition is not law, but it lends credence to their argument. Hell a piece of plastic just became a "machine gun". Ridiculous.

I take solace in knowing that the gun is mightier than both the pen and the sword.

My "assault rifle" and "icecream scoop," Agnes.

I first came across this story several days ago, having been fuming about it, and had intended to start a discussion about it but hadn't made the time, so I thank Richard C for posting this.

I've relied upon the Merriam-Webster online dictionary for years now, and I access it frequently. I've used it in reading and writing both professional writings as well as for personal edification. I've relied on it frequently when reading other member's posts that contained words that I didn't recognize as well as in forming my own posts.

I suppose, in one sense, I really am not surprised that they would choose to change the definition of a word not based on any factual definition or historical context, but simply to achieve a political agenda. The Left has been using this same intellectually dishonest and wrong-headed tactic to achieve their goals for decades.

But words matter. Dictionaries are foundational in establishing correct and accurate meanings for the purpose of clear communications. Parties need to clearly understand the meaning of words if they are to communicate clearly.

When an established resource such as Merriam-Webster arbitrarily changes the definition of a word to suit their purposes rather than to reflect its true, accurate, and correct meaning they lose all credibility for me.

I can not, and will not, depend on Merriam-Webster any longer.

Here is Federalist article on the change which contains both the previous definition of 'assault weapon' listed by Merriam-Webster as well their new definition.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/...e-parkland-shooting/

quote:

Originally posted by Chris42:
This needs a rational response, by numerous people. Their website has a place to contact them.

My thoughts, not clarified yet -

This “redefinition” takes a trusted publication into the political arena and will alienate almost 50% of their customer base.

By not understanding the difference, they are either ignorant or have a political inclination. Either position gives doubt to their credibility as a provider of absolute truth. If they have made one mistake, then there must be others. Result? Now they are no longer to be trusted.

A simple comparison? They are saying Fords and Chevys are the same. While there are many similarities, they are NOT.

Repercussions?

They will lose credibility and business.

They have entered the slime of politics, which will be hard to extract themselves from.

By painting with the “broad brush” the politicians already involved are likely to become encouraged to outlaw or defend their position. Muddying the waters on the subject will strengthen polarization even more.

The civilian AR is not the military M16. Just like a Ford is not a Chevy.

Please, take these thoughts SIG members, elaborate, condense, rethink, reword and make your words be heard. Rewriting dictionaries is not to be taken lightly -

Find “contact us” at the bottom of the page

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Although I've used Merriam-Webster frequently over the years it never crossed my mind that they had a 'contact us' link. Once I get my thoughts organized I'll be doing as you suggest. Thanks!

I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term. Dictionaries are not in the business of saying what words OUGHT to mean, but in recording how they are actually used. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words change meanings in popular use over the years. Dictionaries record those changes, even over the opposition of usage Nazis, or people who want to insist on more technical precision.

Also, note that the "old" definition of assault rifle included semiautomatic weapons, which seems to be the technical error that we would object to most. So that isn't even a change.

I don't think this is part of a conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term. Dictionaries are not in the business of saying what words OUGHT to mean, but in recording how they are actually used. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words change meanings in popular use over the years. Dictionaries record those changes, even over the opposition of usage Nazis, or people who want to insist on more technical precision.

Also, note that the "old" definition of assault rifle included semiautomatic weapons, which seems to be the technical error that we would object to most. So that isn't even a change.

I don't think this is part of a conspiracy.

Fair point...but adding nuances to the previously incorrect definition of 'assault rifle' does nothing to legitimize it's inaccurate and incorrect usage.

If a preponderance of forum members start to address jhe888 as, say, Kegger does that mean that usage becomes correct and therefore justify your forum name change?

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term. Dictionaries are not in the business of saying what words OUGHT to mean, but in recording how they are actually used. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words change meanings in popular use over the years. Dictionaries record those changes, even over the opposition of usage Nazis, or people who want to insist on more technical precision.

Also, note that the "old" definition of assault rifle included semiautomatic weapons, which seems to be the technical error that we would object to most. So that isn't even a change.

I don't think this is part of a conspiracy.

Fair point...but adding nuances to the previously incorrect definition of 'assault rifle' does nothing to legitimize it's inaccurate and incorrect usage.

If a preponderance of forum members start to address jhe888 as, say, Kegger does that mean that usage becomes correct and therefore justify your forum name change?

Well, sort of, although the analogy is not exact. Again, a dictionary is a catalog of the way words are actually used - not a book that tells us how they should be used. If everyone actually calls me Kegger, then a dictionary would be justified in saying my name is Kegger, even though my name down at the bureau of vital statistics is still jhe888.

Words do change meanings over time, and dictionaries just record that.

Except in this case, the 'dictionary' has entered the political sphere as well documented earlier in the thread. The editors have a particular bias that they readily share and those editors are the ones making the decisions. This is a purely political move - not a 'conspiracy theory' - they have shared their bias.

quote:

Originally posted by HKg3:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Little pieces falling into place. Someday some ignorant lawmaker will use this new definition to prove his point. The ignoramuses that believe him will be validated and action will be taken accordingly. Will it be effective? Who knows, but the room feels smaller.

Actually, they do not need a dictionary definition to define something in laws.

New Jersey defines "hollow point" ammunition as "penetrating," even though all knowledgeable shooters understand that such ammo is designed to penetrate less than other types. Facts do not apply to idiot agenda driven law makers. They only care about what they want, which may have nothing to do with reality.

Just my $0.02,

Mike

I agree. I'm more focused on how this will legitimize an illegitimate term thus affecting the culture.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term. Dictionaries are not in the business of saying what words OUGHT to mean, but in recording how they are actually used. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words change meanings in popular use over the years. Dictionaries record those changes, even over the opposition of usage Nazis, or people who want to insist on more technical precision.

Also, note that the "old" definition of assault rifle included semiautomatic weapons, which seems to be the technical error that we would object to most. So that isn't even a change.

I don't think this is part of a conspiracy.

I've seen you try and defend the actions of the leftists long enough without calling you on your bullshit. No more. The entire purpose of a Dictionary is to provide a constant definition of the words contained within, no to change their perceived meaning, or usage. The example given earlier about a cat being called an ice cream scoop was perfect. Just because a group of idiots misuse the word, does not in fact change the definition of it. People like you, who so willingly allow our society to be bastardized is what has created the problems we face within our nation.

The left will openly change their course of attack to achieve their goals, regardless of how it looks. They are in it to win it, and when I see you in here defending them, it gives me pause. You have been warned by Para several times, but you still come in here stepping on everyone's dick, just so you can continue to spout off with whatever nonsense you want to, hoping to convince us that you are smarter than we are. I'm not buying the shit you're selling and not many others in here are either.

There have been numerous examples of "academia" redefining words to suit their political needs/goals, this is nothing more than that shit in spades.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term. Dictionaries are not in the business of saying what words OUGHT to mean, but in recording how they are actually used. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Words change meanings in popular use over the years. Dictionaries record those changes, even over the opposition of usage Nazis, or people who want to insist on more technical precision.

Also, note that the "old" definition of assault rifle included semiautomatic weapons, which seems to be the technical error that we would object to most. So that isn't even a change.

I don't think this is part of a conspiracy.

Fair point...but adding nuances to the previously incorrect definition of 'assault rifle' does nothing to legitimize it's inaccurate and incorrect usage.

If a preponderance of forum members start to address jhe888 as, say, Kegger does that mean that usage becomes correct and therefore justify your forum name change?

Well, sort of, although the analogy is not exact. Again, a dictionary is a catalog of the way words are actually used - not a book that tells us how they should be used. If everyone actually calls me Kegger, then a dictionary would be justified in saying my name is Kegger, even though my name down at the bureau of vital statistics is still jhe888.

Words do change meanings over time, and dictionaries just record that.

Word pronunciations and spellings, either incorrect or acceptable variations, certainly change.

Except in informal "urban usage", I'm not sure that word definitions do, and if they do then I am opposed to it. Certainly though, new words are created.

I believe that the wording of the U.S. Constitution was carefully and deliberately chosen by the founders, and while it reflected the correct and accurate word usage of the day, the words are just as accurate and correctly used today, and not open to new definitions.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

What if my Assault rifle is really just a trans-Battle rifle?

I'm not saying that this change was not politically motivated, and it very well may have been. But jhe888 is correct in how dictionaries are maintained. They reflect common usage, not direct it.

I was particularly irritated when they gave in and decided to define "literally" to include the way people had been incorrectly using it, as to emphasize something that was not literally true.

Regardless, this definition change doesn't bother me much, as I don't want to accept the definition of assault rifle to mean fully auto. Fully auto, or semi auto, a rifle can be used offensively or defensively. That is the point that I want to emphasize.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
I'm not saying that this change was not politically motivated, and it very well may have been. But jhe888 is correct in how dictionaries are maintained. They reflect common usage, not direct it.

I was particularly irritated when they gave in and decided to define "literally" to include the way people had been incorrectly using it, as to emphasize something that was not literally true.

Regardless, this definition change doesn't bother me much, as I don't want to accept the definition of assault rifle to mean fully auto. Fully auto, or semi auto, a rifle can be used offensively or defensively. That is the point that I want to emphasize.

Just look up irregardless.
It is now a word, right or wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

Except in informal "urban usage", I'm not sure that word definitions do, and if they do then I am opposed to it. Certainly though, new words are created.

Words do change meanings, sometimes quite drastically.

http://mentalfloss.com/article...rastically-over-time

https://ideas.ted.com/20-words...hing-very-different/

http://www.theenglishisland.co...e-changed-over-time/

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I am not privy to dictionary editors' meetings, but I'd guess that this is a change that reflects actual popular usage of the term.

A wag asked me, in response to my criticism of M-W, "Do you understand the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism?" I allowed as how I did, and M-W failed on both counts.

They failed on the count of prescriptivism in failing to maintain the original, and correct definition of the term.

They failed on the count of descriptivism by bowing to incorrect usage by a small population of political activists. It's "assault weapon" the anti-gunners and dominant media have primarily been using, not "assault rifle." The former is a made-up term. The latter is a term coined by the military, and sometimes misused by political activists.

I agree that it's political activism on M-W's part. I now regard Merriam-Webster as an unreliable reference source. I will use them no longer, nor will I regard any argument made using them as a source a valid one.

Mutedblade, may I have your email so that you can review my posts so that I do not stray too far from the viewpoint that you believe is acceptable?

Zero fucks what they say.

Zero.