Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976) defines “express” as “Directly and distinctly stated or expressed rather than implied or left to inference: not dubious or ambiguous: definite, clear, explicit, unmistakable.” Second, the threat must be of death, or activity that would cause the victim to be in reasonable apprehension of his or her life. Id. at 1080-81. The court therefore found that the defendant’s threat that “if she did anything funny he would be back” was not an express threat of death because it merely implied physical harm or death, and “was simply not direct, distinct, or express.” Id. at 1081. The Tuck court declined to read the commentary broadly, noting that it does not have the force of law. See also United States v. Moore, 6 F.3d 715, 721-22 (11th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>): United States v. Canzater, 994 F.2d 773, 775
holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that the statement i have a gun is a threat of death holding that i have a gun give me money may imply threat to use gun but was not an express threat of death holding that the phrase i have a gun constitutes a threat of death under  2b31b2f holding that threat i have a gun and nothing to lose was not an express threat of death because there was not express mention of death and could also be interpreted to mean that robber was desperate and willing to turn alleged gun on himself