Even where statute said "crime of violence" means (I) "and" includes (II), the court interpreted it as (I) "or" (II). "Bonilla urges that because the Guideline lists the crime of violence definition in the conjunctive, the government must prove that the offense has a particular element and that the offense constitutes a specific type of crime. Contrary to Bonilla's position, we have held that a statute's use of disjunctive or conjunctive language is not always determinative. See Alaska v. Lying, 797 F.2d 1479, 1483 n.4 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, we must strive to give effect to the plain, common-sense meaning of the enactment without resorting to an interpretation that "def[ies] common sense." Cook Inlet Native Ass'n v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1471, 1473-74 (9th Cir. 1987)(citation omitted)." United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. June 9, 2003).