weapons of mass destruction

[Jonathan Lighter]

But seriously, Fred found an isolated ex. from 1937, with occasional but
steadily increasing usage from 1945.

It unequivocally referred to enormously destructive weapons - flames, big
bombs, and poison gas in 1937, with the addition of bigger bombs and
biological agents after the war.

Question: When was the current federal statute passed (post 9/11?) and,
more importantly, why does it use this phrase instead of something more
obviously appropriate, like (e.g.) "explosive or otherwise destructive
weapon or device"? After all, the list of possibilities provided is as
close to exhaustive as the legislative mind could imagine.

Seems like them Congressmen were setting themselves up to look like jerks.
Of course we know that's impossible.

JL


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: weapons of mass destruction
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gag! Good call!
>
> Some day I'll be as old as you and remember things...
>
>      VS-)
>
> On 4/23/2013 7:15 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> > So Saddam Hussein did have WMDs!
> >
> > Lots of 'em!
> >
> > BTW, you mean "Vic Morrow."
> >
> > JL
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com
> >wrot=
> > e:
> >
> > ...
> >   And, as Victor Mature might attest (had he
> > survived), pyrotechnics can kill just like the real thing...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org