Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Changes Definition Of Assault Rifle After Parkland

a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

So Merriam-Webster gets to express their opinion and therefore makes it so... I had no idea they were so powerful.

When you control the language, you control the argument.

Liberals have had that figured out for decades.

Why don't they consult a true authoritative source such as the Military definition?

RScottie said:

Why don't they consult a true authoritative source such as the Military definition?

Click to expand...

That would be too much common sense..... Why use facts when you can simply claim what you want to be a fact is suddenly one and everyone listens.

Just another reason to use Wiktionary over them.

For context, what was the original definition?

Liberals are always planting these seeds for use in the future! Control what is taught and you control the end result needed!

M-W is an English dictionary, it has little to no relevance to the American language anyway.

That would be using their God given common sense.

Look on the bright side.....



....at least NOW they're clearly defining what they want to take away from you.


Exposing the stupidity always helps when addressing a problem.

230JHP said:

When you control the language, you control the argument.

Liberals have had that figured out for decades.

Click to expand...

That sums it up perfectly! Truth can't will under these terms! It's just more brainwashing our youth! This reminds me of how newer school history books stated that africans were indentured servants brought here to work freely??? The only issue is when that was pointed out, there was correction. We won't get that satisfaction as most of them believe it.

Shouldn't it be something more like:

Assault: make a physical attack on

and then many pages later:

Rifle: a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.

In other words, what is the dictionary doing putting separate words together anyway? Come to think of it, who made it ok to use "assault," which can be a noun or a verb, into an adjective?

kschilk said:

M-W is an English dictionary, it has little to no relevance to the American language anyway.

Click to expand...

"The British and the Americans are two peoples divided by a common language" I forget who said that, but it sure sounds like Churchill...

kschilk said:

M-W is an English dictionary, it has little to no relevance to the American language anyway.

Click to expand...

That's what a LEFTenant who worked for me once used to say.

TurtleTamer said:

Shouldn't it be something more like:

Assault: make a physical attack on

and then many pages later:

Rifle: a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.

In other words, what is the dictionary doing putting separate words together anyway? Come to think of it, who made it ok to use "assault," which can be a noun or a verb, into an adjective?

Click to expand...

That's how it is in the Cambridge Dictionary.

Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls!

kschilk said:

M-W is an English dictionary, it has little to no relevance to the American language anyway.

Click to expand...

Uh...M-W is an American company. Since 1843. The official language of the United States is English, not "American" which isn't even a language though you could make a case for "American English".

I doubt the change is political. Language is dynamic and changes to reflect popular usage. See my signature.