Replies

Nonsense. Your argument is totally circular. One rogue general CAN cause quite a bit of destruction before answering to superiors. While one nut CAN NOT field reliable WMDs without LOTS of support staff in the form of technicians and maintainence, and security.

Your mistake is starting from the point of employment for one, and not the other. Your other mistake is defining the term "weapon" as a single, discrete, mechanism. I might just as well say the DC anthrax attack didn't involve WMDs because it wasn't really a weapon; it was just some white powder.

My argument is literal and correct. A person is not a weapon...

definitions of weapon:
An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.

An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc.

weaponry used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"