I?ve had it up to here with weapons of mass destruction. To clarify, I mean the phrase ?weapons of mass destruction? and not the actual weapons because, as a guy, I think those are cool. Anyway, I recommend sanctions against persons who use the phrase when not referencing actual weapons of mass destruction.
You know the people to whom I?m referring. There are people who describe hot-sauce as a weapon of mass destruction because the sauce is supposed to be extra hot. There are also sports commentators who use the phrase to describe a particular athlete or play. You?ve probably seen plenty of other examples.
To date, there are very few actual kinds of weapons of mass destruction. To be a WMD, the weapon should have the destructive power necessary to wipe out a city?s population. Nuclear weapons, biological agents, chemical agents and similar devices qualify. Your hot sauce does not qualify unless it is toxic enough to kill a few thousand people with one application. Likewise, no matter how curly and long your mullet, your knuckles don?t meet the definition of WMD either.
Another tendency is to use variations of the phrase. How many times have you heard some jerks say he had a ?weapon of ass destruction?? The guy obviously thinks he?s being clever. I can only assume that he is making reference to his self destructive habits.
So, here?s the plan. First, we pass a law that allows for people being beaten on the grounds that the person ?needed it?. Then we make a law that making the penalty for abusing the first law death by something unpleasant. Third, we pass a resolution that supports that using the phrase when not talking about literal WMDs is a grounds for ?needing it?.
If we follow this plan, we can finally discourage people from misusing the phrase that describes items of such horrific power. Best yet, this precedent can eventually be expanded to discourage other types of stupidity.
You gotta pick the right guy to do the job.
Go out now and vote for LibertyBob.