Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sarisataka

(18,560 posts)
7. US law says that is the case
Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:46 PM
Apr 2013

Definitions:

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
4(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
I think a pressure cooker d_r Apr 2013 #1
Well.. supernaut Apr 2013 #2
By that definition handguns are WMDs. nt hack89 Apr 2013 #3
I'm not sure I'd call a cooker bomb a WMD either kudzu22 Apr 2013 #4
I believe he was charged G_j Apr 2013 #6
I guess they have a different definition kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8
Using the logic employed by the OP Crepuscular Apr 2013 #5
Certainly, automobiles have killed more people than crock pots. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #11
US law says that is the case sarisataka Apr 2013 #7
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury ...gun. spanone Apr 2013 #16
If you can't tell the difference between a gun and a bomb, for cryin' out loud, I can't help you. Bake Apr 2013 #18
So if one bomb blast = WMD, then Iraq had WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #25
Frankly, I doubt the Boston bombs actually qualify as WMDs. Bake Apr 2013 #30
IMO, the Boston bombs shouldn't qualify, but Tsarnaev was charged with City Lights Apr 2013 #35
The definition of WMD is different from department to department. lob1 Apr 2013 #42
And pressure cooker. And cars. And planes. And lighters (catch a house on fire with one) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #22
Not according to 2332a sarisataka Apr 2013 #32
It's an absurd definition of the term. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #24
Yes MattBaggins Apr 2013 #26
All right then...what weapons do soldiers use that *aren't* WMDs? Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #29
You will have to take that up with both the DoJ and DoD MattBaggins Apr 2013 #31
Agreed. Now we're dumbing down WMD. City Lights Apr 2013 #27
Under US law sarisataka Apr 2013 #33
I certainly agree that's how US law defines it. Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #34
I agree sarisataka Apr 2013 #36
It's a definition giving big brother wide latitude to categorize any act by the un-cleansed indepat Apr 2013 #41
You have a question I can't answer. Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #9
you mean pressure cooker and no one has called pressure cookers wmds. NO ONE. cali Apr 2013 #10
they were charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. spanone Apr 2013 #17
yes, but is anyone calling pressure cookers wmd? fuck no. cali Apr 2013 #38
It was a pressure cooker bomb jmowreader Apr 2013 #12
Bill Maher said last night that if a pressure cooker bomb is considered WMD, City Lights Apr 2013 #13
i have wondered the same. 26 murdered in newtown ....was that not mass destruction? spanone Apr 2013 #14
At least one of them you can aim. (nt) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #15
Read the legislation and then start emoting. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Apr 2013 #20
It doesn't fit their meme...../nt think Apr 2013 #21
Because pressure cookers don't have the NRA, and millions of yahoos Hoyt Apr 2013 #23
I am so sick of our resident DU yahoos Skittles Apr 2013 #28
Please tell the admins. They need to hear this until it sinks in. Most Dems are not gun nuts. Electric Monk Apr 2013 #37
I'm the NBA and I vote! Deep13 Apr 2013 #40
Killing in succession is better than killing all at once? Deep13 Apr 2013 #39
Because Turbineguy Apr 2013 #43
good question. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a pressure cooker bomb...»Reply #7