




Of course.  The term must be rigidly defined in any bill.


I doubt she uses this term for that.  You are using a quote allegedly
from her, can you back it up?




I read the article as presenting first an argument about weapons of mass
destruction (as commonly understood) and then switching to other topics.
The first point evidently was to show that not all weapons should be
allowed, and then the later analysis was, given this understanding, to
consider another class.



