re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles

I am very pro-gun. I might be considered radically pro-gun by some.

That being said, arguing semantics is a waste of time IMO. If a politician writes a law using the 'incorrect' definition of assault weapon then that definition becomes law.

The problem with that document is that it is too obviously slanted. While many of the facts are true, when he says things like, "The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing." and “Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles." it hurts his argument. Prior to 1944 there was no such thing as an "Assault Rifle", it is a made up term (Sturmgewehr) coined by Adolf Hitler himself primarily for political/propaganda purposes. But just because someone coins a new term doesn't mean it has no meaning. ALL words came into our lexicon at one point or another.

My point is that there is no reason to make these statements, they do nothing to add to the argument, and only serve to expose an agenda. The argument for the continuing legality of AR-15s can be made without any mention of whether words have meaning or not. The numbers speak for themselves, and sometimes saying more actually subtracts from the argument.