The “clip vs magazine” crisis

posted at 10:01 am on February 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The current gun debate has brought an old, familiar bugaboo back into the limelight, and it’s one most of you have probably seen. It comes in the form of critics rising up and taking umbrage with commentators substituting the word “clip” for “magazine” when talking about weapons technology. I’ve lost count of the number of tweets, blog posts and articles which decry the error and seek to dismiss the arguments being made. This avenue of attack is based on the speaker or author’s failure to understand the fundamental mechanics of weaponry, leading to the assumption that the rest of their argument must therefore be specious.

The first thing to point out is that these critics are absolutely correct on the technical merits. A clip and a magazine are two different animals, and most younger gun buyers today – particularly civilian, sport shooters – are unlikely to have ever seen a clip. You can find a nice review of the difference between them here, but a shorter answer will suffice. A magazine feeds rounds into the chamber of the weapon, is generally spring loaded, and is part of the firing / reloading process for the gun. A clip traditionally held rounds in a set configuration, generally by the base, and facilitated loading into the magazine.

Unfortunately, over a long period of casual use, the two words have begun to merge. It’s an easy mistake to make. I’ve made it myself. Heck… so has Wayne LaPierre for that matter. That doesn’t make it right, but it falls into a pattern which has been plaguing logophiles for ages… the sad fact is that words evolve over time, often to their detriment. And when they are used incorrectly for a long enough period by enough people, the “new definition” takes root and it’s pretty much impossible to exterminate.

There are tons of examples to be found. One of my “favorite” (as in pet peeve) entries in the category is hoi polloi. The original meaning of the phrase was “the common people,” referring to the great unwashed masses. It was actually a derogatory term. But it’s a fancy sounding phrase, and confused writers began using it to refer to the upper crust, elite. That was done so often that modern reference works now actually refer to both as correct usage. The word was turned on its head.

Further fun – or tragic, depending on your point of view – examples abound. Did you know that “awful” originally meant, “‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing?” The word Manufacture was first used to reference things made by hand with artisan craftsmanship. Counterfeit was a compliment, meaning “a perfect copy” and a “punk” once meant a prostitute or harlot. Whether we like it or not, words evolve. And “clip” has slowly but surely begun muscling its way into the language as a casual alternate meaning for a magazine.

That doesn’t mean you’re wrong to try to correct people, but there’s a downside to it as well. When we fall back on sniping over technical tap dances out of the dictionary over differences in terminology which have little practical effect on the subject at hand, it seems to weaken the argument. There are so many stronger, valid criticisms to be made of the pitch being given by gun grabbers, and resorting to the, “nanny nanny boo boo, you don’t know what a magazine is” argument just makes it look as if the speaker has run out of valid objections. And please keep in mind that I don’t say this from a position of somebody defending David Gregory here. Any review of all my columns on Second Amendment issues will show that I’ve been right up there with the strongest defenders of gun owners’ rights you’re likely to find, and I remain so to this day. I’m also something of a nitpicker myself when it comes to a love of words. But this argument, as satisfying as some may find it to use, really doesn’t seem to be helping anything.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What is this? http://vitreoushumor.net/index.php?showimage=1871

Click on image for clue.

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

What is this? http://vitreoushumor.net/index.php?showimage=1871

Click on image for clue.

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Ummm…what passes for the liberal mind? You know–blurry and empty?

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

On a more serious note – as to the issue of gun registration (universal background checks):

The Gun Control Debate
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/heller-gun-control-debate.htm

Background checks are a placebo, a useless “feel good” drug, to placate the citizens, and make them think that we are prohibiting criminals and lunatics from getting guns. People in their right minds, understand that criminals do not obey laws, ergo the designation, “criminal”.

What folks who are not part of the gun culture do not realize, is that registration is the holy grail of gun control. Once you have all guns registered, you can control them. If a significant number of the guns in a society are not known, they cannot be controlled. The same is true of ammunition. Own a list of the people who have it, and you own the people’s behavior. It’s that simple.

One of the most important things we could do as Americans in terms of staying free, is making sure that government does NOT know who is armed, and with what they are armed. Unless a person has demonstrated hostile intent by previous criminal act, the government of a free country has no interest and no business in knowing what arms they might possess.

Since the point of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government restrained – would it be a good idea for said government to be in control of those restraints?

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

canopfor on February 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I liked the one complaining about the right hand curve because all his bananas have left hand curves. Oh oh, and the person who wants a Spanish version because he like Plantains.

Cindy Munford on February 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Words have meaning.

Nexialist on February 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

canopfor on February 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Like the term ‘progressive’, I won’t use ‘low-information voter’.

I define them as low brow.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Liam:True Dat:)

canopfor on February 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I like the term Proppressive

Pro as in favor of ..

AND Oppressive as in oppressive government.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Props all around. One of the best discussions on the subject I’ve watched in some time. I’ve been down with the stomach flu all week and I have to say, you guys are really entertaining me this weekend. thanks. :-)

J

Jazz Shaw on February 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Ummm…what passes for the liberal mind? You know–blurry and empty?

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

The mysterious non-hanging chads?

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Since the point of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government restrained – would it be a good idea for said government to be in control of those restraints?

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

While you’re totally right there–you’ll get no dispute from me on that fact–I tend to think in more immediate terms.

Until recently, the more-immediate need is to protect against crime.

Liberals have a long history of coddling criminals. The way I see it, among other considerations, is that stealing guns from the law-abiding is de facto allowing for crime against us. Liberals, by their dogged stance, is allowing criminals to have higher power over the rest of us.

To be nice (for once where libs are concerned), that is the inevitable result of their lunacy.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

On an unrelated topic, but still showing the “progressive” mind: http://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/foodwine.jpg?w=480

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

How many hills are you ready to surrender? One here, one there,and eventually you’ve lost the battle.

soundingboard on February 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I have the constitution and the 2nd amendment on my side which is really all I need.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

You might need a little more than that. If you don’t have the courts on your side, which seems more and more likely, you’re going to need at least a few hundred thousand like-minded individuals. Like most people here.

HiJack on February 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I like the term Proppressive

Pro as in favor of ..

AND Oppressive as in oppressive government.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Niiiiice touch!

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM

What is this? http://vitreoushumor.net/index.php?showimage=1871

Click on image for clue.

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

.
If the page ever finishes LOADING, I’ll try to answer that.

It’s taking forever . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

The mysterious non-hanging chads?

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

A microcosm of liberal insanity, if not willful insidious intent.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/liberal-democrat-brain-2.jpg

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You’re too generous.

Liberal ‘brains’ are a blank slate, like a clay tablet from ancient Babylon that has yet to be written on, then fired to be preserved.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Ruh roh: https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/quranhog.jpg

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Ruh roh: https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/quranhog.jpg

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Can you Photoshop that so the pig is eating Harry Reid?

Title it “Cannibalism”

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM

The “what is this” photo seems to be taken at the business end of an indoor firing range.

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I like the term Proppressive

Pro as in favor of ..

AND Oppressive as in oppressive government.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Niiiiice touch!

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I’ve seen that around a few times and it applies to those who wish the government to be more oppressive most appropriately.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Since the point of the 2nd amendment is to keep the government restrained – would it be a good idea for said government to be in control of those restraints?

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

While you’re totally right there–you’ll get no dispute from me on that fact–I tend to think in more immediate terms.

Until recently, the more-immediate need is to protect against crime.

Liberals have a long history of coddling criminals. The way I see it, among other considerations, is that stealing guns from the law-abiding is de facto allowing for crime against us. Liberals, by their dogged stance, is allowing criminals to have higher power over the rest of us.

To be nice (for once where libs are concerned), that is the inevitable result of their lunacy.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Well, aside from the check against tyranny issue, the newspaper in NY that published the map of who has guns and helped the criminals illustrates another reason why the government shouldn’t be registering guns – they cannot be trusted with the information.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I’ve seen that around a few times and it applies to those who wish the government to be more oppressive most appropriately.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:25 PM

What I find offensive about them the most, is that they dare think they’re leading us to a ‘better tomorrow’.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Well, aside from the check against tyranny issue, the newspaper in NY that published the map of who has guns and helped the criminals illustrates another reason why the government shouldn’t be registering guns – they cannot be trusted with the information.

Galt2009 on February 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Liberals protect criminals more than they ‘care’ about we law-abiding people and our children.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM

So, what good is a discussion if clip and magazine are facets of the larger discussion, but there is no exact agreement of what either of these smaller parts are? Sounds like reality or maybe the basic underlying point of your report – the discussion itself is not very well defined.

ericdijon on February 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM

So, what good is a discussion if clip and magazine are facets of the larger discussion, but there is no exact agreement of what either of these smaller parts are? Sounds like reality or maybe the basic underlying point of your report – the discussion itself is not very well defined.

ericdijon on February 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Liberals don’t want discussion, any more than a petulant three year old refuses to tolerate you telling him he can’t have a cookie.

He wants the cookie. Like with him, and also among liberals, the discussion is over.

Until you forcibly take away the cookie.

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Gun safety: http://image.patriotpost.us/2013-01-08-humor-1.jpg

davidk on February 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM

*****NRA Weighs In Alert**************

NRA on skeet shooting photo: ‘One picture does not erase a lifetime of supporting every gun ban and every gun control scheme imaginable’ – @NBCNews

4 mins ago by editor
========================

canopfor on February 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM

canopfor on February 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Liam on February 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM

An apt analogy. The child cannot form the essentials of a good discussion beyond implementing a blind insistence. Consequently, the energy spent to reason with the child is wasted. However, to spectators the situation is easily rebuked for lack of understanding as a direct result of sympathy for the child.

ericdijon on February 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM

When we fall back on sniping over technical tap dances out of the dictionary over differences in terminology which have little practical effect on the subject at hand, it seems to weaken the argument

.

I agree with you to a point Jazz. But I also think you missed an important distinction. Those seeking to ban stuff virtually never can tell you why they want the AR-15 banned but not more lethal weapons that don’t fall into some sort of a vague definition of “assault weapons.” They’ll rail about one particular weapon having no civilian purpose (self-defense is dismissed by these people as the ravings of nuts) but the same fundamental weapon with a different grip is okay. In short, the mis-use of the term clip to mean magazine is understandable to a point but it is also a tell if you are talking to somebody with enough knowledge to have an intelligent opinion or if you are simply talking to some anti-Constitutionalist leftie who can’t tell you why they hate guns other than that is the meme of the left.

Happy Nomad on February 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM

“‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing?”

That’s a little off.

awe full, a thing that is filled or fills with awe — yes.

but — there’s nothing about a thing that fills with awe that means it also fills with delight.

wonder full, similar, but with the thought of apprehension (which meant something like imagination, as opposed to comprehension, which meant understanding) — there was nothing necessarily delightful about wonder either.

It harrows me with fear and wonder.
– Horatio, c. 1600

On apprehension, comprehension:

More strange than true. I never may believe
These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.
Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends.
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet
Are of imagination all compact.
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold:
That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt.
The poet’s eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.
Such tricks hath strong imagination
That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
It comprehends some bringer of that joy.
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!
– Theseus, c. 1600

(– where “imagination all compact” means they have made a compact with each other. You could have once said, “They are compact! — and everyone would have understood you. You would be saying they are in league.)

amazing was wonder mixed with confusion. To be mazéd, you needed to feel like you were in a maze.

I am amazed, and know not what to say.
– Hermia, c. 1600

Something to point to while we’re here is terrible and horrible; it is becoming necessary to change modern biblical translations as terrible becomes horrible — which is interesting. If any of this is interesting. :) Terrible meant terrifying, i.e., exceedingly scary. God could be terrifying before, but now old translations read like he’s horrifying, i.e., filling with horror — entirely different, those. Once upon a time, anyway. :) You touched awful, out causing the same problem.

Don’t mean to hijack yur thread, Jazz; it’s just that a couple things you said here and have said before make me think you might be into it. :) God knows there has to be a use for all this, it’s all the things I’ve been doing instead of making money.

/back to clips

Axe on February 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I have the constitution and the 2nd amendment on my side which is really all I need.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

You might need a little more than that. If you don’t have the courts on your side, which seems more and more likely, you’re going to need at least a few hundred thousand like-minded individuals. Like most people here.

HiJack on February 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The people willing to make a principled stand for the 2nd amendment without hesitation or qualification aren’t going to give a flying flip it I or any other conservatives call a magazine a clip. And I think it’s poor form to hold someone to a different standard just because they’re a dumbshit liberal. ;)

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM

The obfuscation of terminology is deliberate.

Josh Sugarmann
Violence Policy Center Director
“Assault weapons… are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

-Josh Sugarmann, “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation”, March 1989

Words have meanings. And if we allow the hoplophobes to blur those meanings we’ve lost half of the battle.

soundingboard on February 2, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Worthy of repetition. Our opponents have no qualms about perverting the language of the discussion. In fact, they must resort to distortions and irrational, emotional arguments because neither facts nor logic support their goals. Gabby Gifford’s cry (or rather her speech therapist’s), “We must do something!”, translates to ignoring reality and adopting ineffective “feel good” measures that just happen to be on the gun grabbers’ banning-by-increments wish list.

The perversion of language is not only a problem in the gun control debate, it is common tactic on the Left. Democrats and their media tools are forever framing the issues on favorable terms, and often by perverting the simple meaning of simple words.

After all, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

On a broader scale, we saw Obama portraying the Founding Fathers as a bunch of would be collectivist Progressives in his inaugural address.

Words have meaning. If we concede the meaning of words to the Left, the Democrats, and the media, we concede the argument. We should remind them of the meaning of the words they use not just to correct them on the subject at hand but also to remind them and any bystanders that words have meaning, fixed meaning, that can no more be altered at will than the facts of history, even by the President.

novaculus on February 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Words have meaning. If we concede the meaning of words to the Left, the Democrats, and the media, we concede the argument. We should remind them of the meaning of the words they use not just to correct them on the subject at hand but also to remind them and any bystanders that words have meaning, fixed meaning, that can no more be altered at will than the facts of history, even by the President.

novaculus on February 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Hear hear! And the next time LaPierre or Nuge screw that shit up, I’ll expect you to write them an angry letter post-haste!/

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Words have meaning. If we concede the meaning of words to the Left, the Democrats, and the media, we concede the argument. We should remind them of the meaning of the words they use not just to correct them on the subject at hand but also to remind them and any bystanders that words have meaning, fixed meaning, that can no more be altered at will than the facts of history, even by the President.

novaculus on February 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Conceding way more than the 2nd if we don’t fight Newspeak.

Axe on February 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Axe on February 2, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I like this.

Jazz Shaw on February 2, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Just bought a Remington 1903 made in 1944 yesterday. You know, the ubiquitous A303 licensed to Remington for war production. Bolt action 30-06 5 rnd. stripper to charge the magazine. Under the AWB it would be considered as an assault weapon due to the bayonet lug.

vinceautmorire on February 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Hmmm – wondering about my old Soviet M44…

affenhauer on February 2, 2013 at 5:33 PM

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

You have more faith in politicians than I do.
But I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.

soundingboard on February 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Jazz Shaw on February 2, 2013 at 5:21 PM

:) Hoped maybe.

Axe on February 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

You have more faith in politicians than I do.
But I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.

soundingboard on February 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM

It has nothing to do with my faith in politicians or lack thereof. We have one set of standards for liberals (He called it a clip! What a dumbshit!) and another for our conservative cohort (It’s not a big deal. Just a slip-up). That, my friend, is really what bothers me — the double standard.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I’d agree with you about the merits of not getting into the weeds about semantics, “literally” as Uncle Joe would say, except that the semantics are the battle upon which the AWB is won or lost.

So while I think you’re correct that we ought not correct someone on the “correct” usage of the term “clip” and then smugly declare victory, we really should enter that discussion, and then use it as an opening to discuss the actual basic functioning of the weapons in question, and to bit by bit raise the water table of general understanding of the public about weapons.

For most of us, I imagine, the real basis of a right to bear arms is to preserve and defend our freedom and basic rights, including but not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn’t preclude the need to answer the various attacks on gun ownership on the merits (be it rate of fire or magazine size or gun color), because we can and should win each of those discussions as well.

TexasDan on February 2, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Went to buy some 9mm to punch some paper targets. The guy behind the counter said he had sold 57 boxes of 9mm in ten minutes. Thanks OBlameo your idiotic moron talk has people buying up as much ammo as they can find. Sorry your gun control BS just doesn’t work.

stormridercx4 on February 3, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Clip vs magazine is just a fast way to determine if the author knows what the hell they’re talking about. Or has an editor.
And it’s easier than pointing out all the fail when you read about “assault style double barrel shot guns,” or “5.56 is a large caliber round,” or “While it’s perfectly fine for David Gregory to have his children protected, you are just Hoi Polloi, and need a bath,”… you get the point.

LincolntheHun on February 3, 2013 at 9:10 AM

when someone is making up laws restricting the use of something the terms damned sure matter.

dmacleo on February 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM

gryphon202 on February 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I have no qualms about reminding those on our side about using the correct terminology in the clips vs magazine discussions.

Again, words have meaning. If I take my truck to a mechanic and he repeatedly refers to a tire as a wheel, I’m gonna take my business elsewhere.

And definitions have special significance when crafting law.

If legislators pass a law banning firearms that can “fire more than one projectile with one pull of the trigger you can kiss that 870 goodbye. (Along with Sheriff Joe’s Beretta)

That’s why Newspeak was a central theme in Orwell’s “1984″.
Whoever controls language effectively controls the debate.

I’m not picking a fight, I’ve seen your comments and generally agree with you. But the grabbers will stop at nothing to outlaw firearms.

Clips vs magazines may be a small straw, but each straw has a cumulative effect. And the banners know it. In fact they count on it.
The Devil is in the details. We must stay vigilante.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

The Devil is in the details. We must stay vigilante.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

that works for me :)

dmacleo on February 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM

So I guess the definition of “jazz” has evolved from an American-born musical style, to a pretentious RINO shill?

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I have no qualms about reminding those on our side about using the correct terminology in the clips vs magazine discussions.

Then as I said, I trust you’ll fire off an angry letter to Wayne LaPierre or the Nuge the next time they slip up. After all, words have meaning.

Again, words have meaning. If I take my truck to a mechanic and he repeatedly refers to a tire as a wheel, I’m gonna take my business elsewhere.

But you won’t encourage people to dump their NRA memberships over the same kind of thing?

And definitions have special significance when crafting law.

And you can bet your sweet ass any law banning high-capacity magazines will use “clips or magazines” in every instance of the reference. But we’re not talking about a proposed law here, are we? We’re talking about media malfeasance here, which I don’t believe has anything to do with the debate over whether calling magazines clips has anything to do with our 2nd amendment rights.

If legislators pass a law banning firearms that can “fire more than one projectile with one pull of the trigger you can kiss that 870 goodbye. (Along with Sheriff Joe’s Beretta)

That’s why Newspeak was a central theme in Orwell’s “1984″.
Whoever controls language effectively controls the debate.

No shit Sherlock. Tell me again what that has to do with LaPierre or the Nuge doing the exact same thing that you’re accusing the leftists of doing with ill intent.

I’m not picking a fight, I’ve seen your comments and generally agree with you. But the grabbers will stop at nothing to outlaw firearms.

Clips vs magazines may be a small straw, but each straw has a cumulative effect. And the banners know it. In fact they count on it.
The Devil is in the details. We must stay vigilante.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I know you’re not picking a fight with me. But you’re looking for boogeymen where none exist. Correcting leftists who use the wrong word in describing magazines is going to do nothing — NOTHING — to advance our second amendment rights. All this talk of “we must control the language” is nothing more than a dangerous distraction from what should be our real concern — and that is the policy that the gun grabbers will almost certainly try to enact.

gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 2:34 PM

The two terms have been used interchangeably by the military and even gun enthusiasts for generations…so arguing the point just makes a person look like the jerk that he is.

The nerds that are so incapable of functioning within society as to want to make enemies over two terms that are understood by all persons that are familiar with firearms (and often used by them interchangeably as well) ought to be ostracized, ridiculed, and left to travel within their own dysfunctional, narrow-minded, social-retarded spheres. They are intolerably annoying.

Long live the beautiful, flexible, graceful, and ever-changing English language, enemy of the rigid dork and misfits of society!

TXJenny on February 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Then as I said, I trust you’ll fire off an angry letter to Wayne LaPierre or the Nuge the next time they slip up. After all, words have meaning.

If someone runs over a pedestrian by accident they may be charged with negligent homicide, or manslaughter. If that same driver deliberately runs over that pedestrian the charge would be murder.

But you won’t encourage people to dump their NRA memberships over the same kind of thing?

And yet again, it’s a matter of deliberation.

And definitions have special significance when crafting law.

And you can bet your sweet ass any law banning high-capacity magazines will use “clips or magazines” in every instance of the reference. But we’re not talking about a proposed law here, are we? We’re talking about media malfeasance here, which I don’t believe has anything to do with the debate over whether calling magazines clips has anything to do with our 2nd amendment rights.

I’m talking mendacity. Not sure what you’re talking. Do you believe the media has no influence over public opinion?

If legislators pass a law banning firearms that can “fire more than one projectile with one pull of the trigger you can kiss that 870 goodbye. (Along with Sheriff Joe’s Beretta)

That’s why Newspeak was a central theme in Orwell’s “1984″. Whoever controls language effectively controls the debate.

No shit Sherlock. Tell me again what that has to do with LaPierre or the Nuge doing the exact same thing that you’re accusing the leftists of doing with ill intent.

Very good word. Intent. See above.

I’m not picking a fight, I’ve seen your comments and generally agree with you. But the grabbers will stop at nothing to outlaw firearms.

Clips vs magazines may be a small straw, but each straw has a cumulative effect. And the banners know it. In fact they count on it.
The Devil is in the details. We must stay vigilante.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I know you’re not picking a fight with me. But you’re looking for boogeymen where none exist. Correcting leftists who use the wrong word in describing magazines is going to do nothing — NOTHING — to advance our second amendment rights. All this talk of “we must control the language” is nothing more than a dangerous distraction from what should be our real concern — and that is the policy that the gun grabbers will almost certainly try to enact.

gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 2:34 PM.

How do we influence policy if we allow the opposition to change language at will?
With deliberation.
Do we just allow lies to go unrebutted?

How would you advance our Second Amendment rights?

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Damn. Screwed the pooch on those tags.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM

TXJenny on February 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Your point may work somewhat in everyday speech, but written laws depend on defined language. As does gryphon’s.

But. Big but.

If we allow the grabbers to define the language of written law,at will, we’re screwed.

See my above comment.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM

How would you advance our Second Amendment rights?

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM

By doing the kind of things that would get me in big big trouble, here and elsewhere, for discussing them openly, if you catch my drift. If our problem is really the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine,” our problems are wayyy too big to be solved with manipulation of the language anyway.

gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM

gryphon202 on February 3, 2013 at 9:51 PM

OK.

soundingboard on February 3, 2013 at 10:33 PM

I’ve never heard hoi polloi used to refer to the ‘upper crust’.
I think you’re confusing it with ‘hoity toity’.

Dexter_Alarius on February 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM

api on February 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Great article

api on February 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3