Anything can be categorially called/labelled an "assault weapon," prove me wrong.

"The term “assault weapon” is a controversial term used to define firearms"

Then why isn't the term called "Assault Firearm" then?

Words have very specific meanings, and weapon is a broad term whereas firemar is a specific term.

Therefore, anything can be considered an "assault weapon."

A tea cup.

A spoon.

A fork.

A car.

A knife.

A screwdriver.

A baseball bat.

So on and so forth.

All used as a "weapon" to "assault" another.

An AR-15 is not designed for combat. It is designed for civilian use. It is functionally no different than dozens of rifles made for the same purpose over the decades. The only difference between the older/other versions is, the AR-15 looks more menacing to those who do not understand it. Everyone fears the unknown.

Your "extreme" example is a bad one, at best. Ever see the movie "Runaway" with Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons? Robots were made as caretakers in the homes, but they were easily reprogramed for nefarious reasons. One such robot was and killed the adults, but not the child in the home. And we don't quite live in the age of Terminator, so, no go on your example. Well, except maybe in China where there has been a news story floating around where they have been tinkering with that very idea, but the robot turned on them and killed several scientists.

Either way, in your example, the robot is the killer wielding the gun just like a human being. It's programming, just like human behavior, is the problem and not the tool being wielded.

A kitchen knife, while made for reasons other than killing, can still kill. And historically stabbing weapons have been used just like guns to kill people by the person wielding them. Just last week a kid in Van Nuys High School (CA) did just that. He chose a stabbing object to cut and hurt 4 students in a mass stabbing. Even a pencil can be used as a stabbing weapon, which it has by a student stabbing a staff member at their school (Student stabs staff member with pencil at Memminger Elementary School: CPD | WCIV).

Bottom line, anything used to "assault" another person with the intent to do them either minor, major, serious bodily harm, even death, becomes an "assault weapon" of that person's choice at the time of their heinous criminal act.

You are using a different definition. I've explained my definition and rationale behind it. If you are going by your definition that anything that can be used for assault is an assault weapon, then I guess everything is an assault weapon. But that means the word has no meaning to me. It has no value.

In which case, I have nothing further to say. I won't break down every part of your argument and state what I agree and disagree with If we aren't even working on the same definition.

Funny how I never mentioned the Ar-15, and you just jumped to making that correlation. XD

Seems like you already had a bias that you were looking to confirm, and not actually being inquisitive. Don't worry, you won't be hearing from me anymore, because your definition has shown that you not only already have your mind made up, but that you also have left nothing to debate. Blue is blue, red is red. Yellow is yellow. I'm not going to argue that it's not, that would be ridiculous.

Goodbye. I hope you got what you wanted from me.

No, I am using the commonly understood and accepted defintion what is central to the "debate" involving assault weapons. You were the one who went off on a tangent with a different definition to come up with a poor example that has no relevance in reality.

"If you are going by your definition that anything that can be used for assault is an assault weapon."

Thank you. You just admitted you cannot prove me wrong.

The rest of your retort comes off as a whiny scorned little girl. Superfluous nonsensical sophomoric banality. Don't let the proverbial door hit you one your way out.

"I cant (sic) seem to be (sic) understanding your question."

Sounds like a personal problem to me.