10 round clip controversy

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't really have a dog in the race. I'm not advocating either way. I just thought I'd throw in a different perspective, and you can take some education from that, or not, it really makes no difference to me.

I agree with you. There really isn't much purpose to the discussion, because overall, it isn't one. In order to have a meaningful discussion, there has to be a basis point on which all can agree.

With gun control, the basic issue revolves around the individual right to own guns. Although the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment does indeed prohibit the federal government from infringing upon the *individual* right to own guns, and has thus invalidated some restrictive gun laws as unconstitutional, the gun control side does not acknowledge that there is any such right.

Without that basis, we're not going to have a meaningful discussion with each other - meaning gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates.

Fortunately, it's all just sound and fury at the moment. I predict nothing will come of it.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's why I said that the term 'clip' was being intentionally misused for effect. "A 30-round clip" has a very ominous sound to it. The kind of thing that no typical gun owner with a squirrel rifle or a pheasant shotgun or even a deer rifle in the closet would have any use for. And many gun owners are persuaded in ways such as these. It's subtle, but it's there. You have to be on guard for it. Why 'clip' instead of 'magazine'? Because 'clip' has another meaning. It means 'fast'. Fast, in this instance, is being labeled as a bad thing.

It is the same reason - precisely the same reason - that anti-gun people call certain kinds of bullets 'cop-killer bullets'. Sounds awful, doesn't it? Who on earth would be in favor of or want to own a 'cop-killer' bullet? Good Lord, ban them immediately!

Smart people seize the language and make it serve their interests. It doesn't matter what the argument is, the smartest proponents of it always seize the language. It is the emotional impact and appeal of the words that convince huge swaths of people who are not thinking critically, but with their hearts. There is NEVER a statement issued by a federal politician that in which the words used are not chosen with care and designed to foster emotional appeal to their argument. No one is anti-life. People are pro-choice and pro-life. What, no anti-life or anti-choice? Nope, both sides are FOR something, not against. It's because no one identifies with the 'anti' side of things. For emotional impact, we don't talk about aborting a fetus, we talk abort an unborn infant.

Words, it's all words. You have to make sure you don't let them argue on their own terms; if you do, you've already given them half the argument.

I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue. If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing. But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all. Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.

As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons. Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view. But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets". I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference. I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong. Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case. I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.

This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better. If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it. But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue. If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing. But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all. Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.

As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons. Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view. But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets". I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference. I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong. Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case. I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.

This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better. If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it. But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.

I can forgive ignorant, mistaken and wrong..........some of it, however, is calculated and intentionally dishonest.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue. If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing. But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all. Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.

The media and the politicians continue to use the word 'clip', even though they have now been informed (if they didn't know already) that the correct word is 'magazine'. They do not correct their statements. This is not an accident. There are no accidents.

As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons. Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view. But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets". I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference. I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong. Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case. I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.

This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better. If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it. But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.

It's valid debate. The problem is, you have to catch them at it and refuse to argue using the terms they've laden with emotional crap to use against you. And most people are just not critical thinkers. Which is why this stuff works.

No words used by media or politicians are accidental after the first use. It doesn't matter if it seems like a minor quibble or not; the use is always intentional, especially when it is incorrect and has been publicly corrected by those objecting to the term.

I will agree with you that it isn't being used on purpose to drive the argument when a major news organization gives a retraction and begins using the term 'magazine' instead. Please let me know when that happens and I'll do my own retracting.

 

[Flying Crane]

I can forgive ignorant, mistaken and wrong..........some of it, however, is calculated and intentionally dishonest.

yep, on both sides.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The media and the politicians continue to use the word 'clip', even though they have now been informed (if they didn't know already) that the correct word is 'magazine'. They do not correct their statements. This is not an accident. There are no accidents.



It's valid debate. The problem is, you have to catch them at it and refuse to argue using the terms they've laden with emotional crap to use against you. And most people are just not critical thinkers. Which is why this stuff works.

No words used by media or politicians are accidental after the first use. It doesn't matter if it seems like a minor quibble or not; the use is always intentional, especially when it is incorrect and has been publicly corrected by those objecting to the term.

I will agree with you that it isn't being used on purpose to drive the argument when a major news organization gives a retraction and begins using the term 'magazine' instead. Please let me know when that happens and I'll do my own retracting.

That's exactly right.......those who wish to ban guns want to frame the debate so that the conditions of the debate are set by them.........I refuse to accept their basic premise at all because it's a dishonest one!

 

[Flying Crane]

I appreciate the clarification that this thread has given regarding the definition of clip and magazine. That was actually something that I was not personally clear on.

Prior to now, I will say that the term "magazine" actually conjured up more sinister images in my own mind. Somehow my lack of understanding the definition made me think that a magazine represented a higher capacity clip. Like a clip was perhaps a smaller capacity item, but once it reached a certain larger size it was termed a "magazine", or perhaps a magazine was an item termed with larger and more destructive military weapons.

that shows my own ignorance of the issue, but if you want to insist that "clip" is being used to imply something more sinister, I say that to me it was the other way around.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I appreciate the clarification that this thread has given regarding the definition of clip and magazine. That was actually something that I was not personally clear on.

Prior to now, I will say that the term "magazine" actually conjured up more sinister images in my own mind. Somehow my lack of understanding the definition made me think that a magazine represented a higher capacity clip. Like a clip was perhaps a smaller capacity item, but once it reached a certain larger size it was termed a "magazine", or perhaps a magazine was an item termed with larger and more destructive military weapons.

that shows my own ignorance of the issue, but if you want to insist that "clip" is being used to imply something more sinister, I say that to me it was the other way around.

I do not doubt your statements at all. I merely state that the media and politicians use words very intentionally. When misused and corrected, yet they refuse to change the word used, it is unequivocally intentional that they are using that word and no other. Mistakes happen - people correct them if they are really mistakes. I see no correction; do you? I am sure they are aware by now of the distinction. So why no correction?

 

[Flying Crane]

I do not doubt your statements at all. I merely state that the media and politicians use words very intentionally. When misused and corrected, yet they refuse to change the word used, it is unequivocally intentional that they are using that word and no other. Mistakes happen - people correct them if they are really mistakes. I see no correction; do you? I am sure they are aware by now of the distinction. So why no correction?

What is it that you believe they accomplish, by using the term "clip"? I honestly cannot think of any advantage.

 

[lklawson]

Would you agree then that this makes the percentages a bit more realistic? I don't know. It seems pretty in line to me. While automobiles are responsible for many more injuries, our exposure to them is also pervasive. Stats for autos include pedestrians, pedal cyclists and anything else related to being a motor vehicle, which I'm not sure are relevant.

OK, let's put it like this then, "More than 52 Million gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Good post. A big part of the problem contributing to (d) is that we have many laws on the books that are pointless, clogging up the system so that those who are truly dangerous slip through the cracks. I know I sound like a broken record, but MJ is a perfect example, clogging up the courts and jails with hippies and college students.

I agree. But then again, I'm pretty much a Libertarian.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.

We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs. I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Obviously it's a polarizing issue and often any "discussion" ends up with both sides calling each other crazy wingnuts and dismissing each other out of hand, instead of really considering what is being said. I see this happen on both sides of the argument, and it doesn't accomplish much. Nobody is willing to even look to see if there might be some legitimacy in the viewpoint of the other side, because by virtue of the fact that he's on the other side means he's not worth listening to. And so the arguments continue forever. Actually, this thread has so far remained fairly respectful and that's a good thing. I do notice however, that no serious gun control advocates have jumped in so most people here are preaching to the choir.

I've watched and participated in this debate for decades. The problem that I've seen is that the banners are never, ever interested in "meaningful debate." They want to ban and are utterly convinced of their "rightness."

The times that I've seen the "pro" side attempt to "be reasonable" it is always, without fail, turned and used against them and the "ban" side refuses simultaneously to admit any virtue to their opposition. What ends up happening is the "pro" side looks like they've given up a point and the "ban" side crows loudly, "see! when they are reasonable they actually agree with us!!!"

Predictably, the "pro" side has learned the hard way that they cannot be seen to give any ground.

To be honest, I've seen this exact dynamic played out in any number of highly charged political debates. Same song, different words.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What is it that you believe they accomplish, by using the term "clip"? I honestly cannot think of any advantage.

I have already stated why *I* believe they are using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'. And of course you can think of an advantage, I said what it was previously. You mean to say you cannot *agree* that it's an advantage. And that's fine.

However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason. The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it. This is pure logic. The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term. The reason? That's guesswork. The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have already stated why *I* believe they are using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'. And of course you can think of an advantage, I said what it was previously. You mean to say you cannot *agree* that it's an advantage. And that's fine.

However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason. The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it. This is pure logic. The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term. The reason? That's guesswork. The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.

OK, you feel Clip has a more sinister message, I disagree with that, but no problem.

Here's a thought: maybe there's a perception that the general public is more familiar with the term clip. Start talking about "magazines" and the dumbasses start saying things like, "what? magazines? Ya mean like Hustler!!?? What's THAT got to do with bullets?"

maybe it's just term-recognition on a larger scale.

 

[lklawson]

However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason. The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it. This is pure logic. The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term. The reason? That's guesswork. The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.

I can't quite agree. There is every chance that they continue misusing the term "clip" because they simply reject your claim that it is a misuse based on the plain and simple fact that using the term "clip" to mean "detachable ammunition store & feeder" is commonly understood by pretty much everyone.

In other words, the evidence of their direct personal experience contradicts your single claim and thus they feel you are "wrong" and your claims can be rejected.

This alone makes it dangerous to beat this particular horse. If they can easily dismiss your argument about something as concrete as a term because what you are saying contradicts common understanding they may wonder what else you are saying should be dismissed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Archangel M]

We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs. I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Sure..then Parole THEM. How these parole boards can see fit to let a violent felon out while keeping a weed grower in is beyond me.

 

[Archangel M]

http://blog.robballen.com/2009/09/08/p3717-because-im-nothing-if-not-helpful.post



http://tgace.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/weapons-for-reporters-get-it-right-for-once/



http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/11/media-gun-experts/

There have been multiple claims that the handgun used was banned during the laughably labeled “assault weapons ban” that was the law of the land from 1994 until it expired in 2004.

This is entirely and unquestionably false.

There have been claims that the extended magazines were banned, and Loughner would not have had access to them had the law not expired.

This is also untrue.

While the ban meant no new standard-capacity or high-capacity magazines could be manufactured after the law went into effect, it did not make illegal the sale, purchase, possession, or use of either new or used magazines. Retailers literally had hundreds of thousands of factory-new high-capacity magazines for sale during the entire life the “ban,” and these magazines were always available in gun stores, in sporting goods catalogs, and online.

 

[KenpoTex]

Grrrrr...never mind...

 

[sgtmac_46]

We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs. I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I am in complete agreement as it pertains to the 'War on Drugs'.