Mashable article “A cannon is a machine gun, it is an armed weapon,” he said.
“A gun is a piece of armor that can fire a projectile.”
“The reason I say a cannon is armed is because the shell has to be large enough to penetrate the armor, which is something the current system can’t do.”
The news was also met with criticism from some gun enthusiasts, who claimed the term would allow the public to be misled about the technology.
“There is no real reason to think that the US military is using any kind of cannon in their fight against ISIS,” John Voss, the president of the Institute for Legislative Action, told the Associated Press news agency.
“We can’t get a good estimate of the size of a shell from a satellite,” he added.
The use of the term ‘cannons’ in this context is controversial.
In March 2017, the US National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit against the White House and Defense Secretary James Mattis over the term.
The suit was brought in response to a report by Politico that described the Trump administration as “cannibalising” its military in order to increase firepower and efficiency.
However, the NRA’s lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in April, ruling that the NRA did not have standing to sue.
In response to the decision, a spokesperson for Mattis told Politico that “the government has a right to determine what is a legitimate use of force.
We will continue to use our military tools to defend our country and the American people.”