Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Where do you get that assertion from?

Let me make up a definition:
- a hand held bullet using weapon, with a long barrel, that is capable of killing multiple people in a short frame of time (Someone might come up with a different definition.)
- That's the important bits. Now to the technical details...

A word means a particular thing because people commonly agree on it's meaning. But that 'common agreement' varies from place to place (ie. there is not universal agreement on definitions), and time to time (ie definitions evolve over time). Language definitions evolve and vary.

- When 'gay' it first started to be used as a term for homosexual, some who didn't understand the nature of language would have called it wrong / incorrect / fraudulent use of the word. 'Gay' never used to mean homosexual. It evolved to mean that. It is not 'fraudulent' to use it to mean homosexual, despite it's original definition. It was commonly understood to mean happy...and that common understanding evolved over time to now mean homosexual (and you would get odd looks now, trying to use it to mean happy)

- An Australian in the US saying he liked wearing thongs, would be misunderstood. He/She is using a different definition of the word, but it's not fraudulent, because it's name was commonly agreed upon where he/she came from, but in the US they commonly agreed that it would mean something else.

As mentioned, the nature of changing language is 'common agreement', which is why some words differ from place to place, because common agreement in those places differ. It's why dictionaries differ - because they are trying to define what the common agreement for the word is, and the fact is (shown by their varying definitions), there often isn't universal agreement to all that a word entails.

You are arguing semantics on a technicality.

You are arguing semantics on a technicality. To you it's important one way. To others it's important it be defined another way....there's common agreement in both camps, and they don't agree with each other on technical points. The motivations behind it (what they consider dangerous, or highly problematic, or unacceptable risk) is likely largely behind the different interpretations of the same word, in this case.

Arguing who is correct, is then futile, because both camps have common agreement of their camps behind them.

Who will 'win'? Who knows. That's the nature of evolving language.

What is fact is that one camp had the power to change the definition legally.

There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. The intent of gun control legislation is crystal clear - to limit the opportunities for one man with a firearm to cause mass violence and casualties.

Limiting the sale of semi-automatic guns, a comprehensive national background check system, banning large capacity magazines - these are all things that could help us protect ourselves as a civilized society.

It is possible for someone determined to derail any reasoning about gun control to do so sticking to the letter of the law, but employing ambiguity and technicalities. Some of that is happening here. People doing that are not arguing in good faith.

When people automatically counter any suggested method of gun control with reasons why it would be useless, they are not arguing in good faith.

When their overall stance is that there is basically nothing that can (or even should) be done to limit the use of firearms, they are not arguing in good faith.

In order to have a good faith argument about gun control, one rock-bottom stipulation must be made by both sides: that there is a gun problem in our country.

There is no basis for any productive discussion if one side does not accept that there is a problem, but nonetheless gets everyone into splitting semantic hairs defining the problem.

That does not change the fact that it is fraudulent for leftists to fabricate untrue definitions for words as cover for their violation of civil liberties.

The definition of "assault weapon" was pretty clear in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban law.

Your whole post just kept proving my point.....'you're wrong'.....'No. You're wrong.'....."Am Not!"

Lets also not forget that the Founding Fathers knew better than modern day leftists, they used the term "Arms" specifically so that it wouldn't be confused with just a musket only...

When leftists run around screaming things that aren't true

it is worthwhile to counter with a healthy dose of the truth.

As for multiple truths - a person telling the truth is telling what they believe to be true. And what they believe to be true can vary greatly. So yes, there are multiple truths.