No, not rigged.

But sometimes things get interpreted in ways that really stretch the meanings of words. I think anyone that has looked at legal history can agree with that.

And sometimes legal definitions are dumb, which isn't even a court thing.

Also even if it's correct inside its realm, if enough objects count as deadly weapons then "he had a deadly weapon" loses most of its impact and gets misleading. I'm reminded that technically a bare receiver is a gun...

But as a general rule, if we think about all this in aggregate, we should agree that the literal legal experts are way way more likely to get this stuff correct than you are.

If we were evaluating how valuable someone's opinion is on all this stuff, your opinion would be way down the list, compared to legal experts.

And if we compared a random ununiformed opinion, such as from you, and compared it to the opinions of the legal system, it is way more likely that you don't really know how any of this works, as opposed to the actual legal experts.

I think you’re being hung up on the literal meaning of the words a little bit. It seems reasonable to have more severe consequences for someone attacking someone else with a rock compared to somebody just using their fists. We decided to call the former “assault with a deadly weapon”. This doesn’t mean that a rock is a “deadly weapon” under all circumstances. You can’t get charged with “possession of a deadly weapon” for simply walking around with a rock without intent of hurting anyone.