Those three definitions indicate very different specific firearms though, and all three have significant gray areas that are left open to interpretation.

Not that that’s a failing of the definitions, or even of the term…but it’s definitely worth noting within the context of a discussion about potential laws using the terms in question as a defining, delineating qualifier.

There’s also the very eyebrow raising last part of that last definition. Basically defining a weapon not by its function or capability but based on aesthetic qualities alone.

Again, if that’s the definition everyone agrees upon, fine, whatever… but the narrower the definition, the easier it’ll be to get buy in but the fewer weapons it’ll affect…whereas a broad definition might cover a lot more firearms but then you’re going to have a lot of objections to any legislation based on the increasing number of edge cases where a law impacts a firearm that it probably shouldn’t.

…of course this is all hypothetical, and it all exists in the no man’s land between the real gun control ideal scenario of simply outlawing all guns and requiring everyone to turn in all guns they own and totally disarming the population…and the hard-line 2A advocates who feel that 2A is the only gun law that should exist, and rather than restricting weapon ownership, laws should instead focus on the illegal acts done with the guns rather than the guns themselves.

Sure! So as long as the manufacture says ‘not designed for combat’ it’s not an assault rifle, right??