Reading this I wondered ? I assumed it was only about really large weapons.

Routh has a criminal record dating back to at least 2002, when he was convicted in Guilford County, North Carolina, on one felony count of possession of a weapon of mass destruction, according to a review of state court records.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you keep reading it is infact a modified firearm

    The weapon of mass destruction charge was brought against Routh over a fully-automatic machine gun he had, according to the News & record.

    • MelastSB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      So Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction ^^

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        “We know where the are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense while being publicly questioned on the validity of claims of WMDs in lead up to invasion of Iraq.

        Rumsfeld of the “known knowns”.

  • shaggy959500@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I just saw this post that clarified it was a fully automatic machine gun. Weapon of mass destruction sounds like a nuke, but from a legislative perspective, I can see how a fully automatic machine gun would qualify.

    Link to post

  • Erasmus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The US government now uses it to charge people indiscriminately. I see the term in my local headlines once a month, at least, where someone gets tagged with this BS charge.

    As one person said I used to think ‘dear God they must have a nuke in the basement’ but anymore you find out the person just had a sawed off shotgun or possibly the parts for a homemade silencer and a prosecutor got an instant hard on.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I would define it as any weapon which would be overkill (no pun intended) if you were to get them for any purpose aside from destruction, such as if you excused its possession on account of self-defense. One could say a regular handgun suffices as a tool of self-defense, you could take one shot and prevent the advancements of a perpetrator. To get something like an automatic gun of war or a flamethrower, supposedly for purposes of protection, is the self-defense equivalent of parents catching a small child eating all the cake while nobody is looking only to excuse themselves with “but I was hungry”.

  • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    That was the traditional meaning of the word, yes. However it has been horribly misused to push headlines and in the legal arena it has been used to push for harder penalties on what would be considered traditional weapons.

    It’s a pet peve of mine because it dilutes the word, but home made preasure cooker bombs have been called WMDs in the US and people seem OK with it.