a metal receptacle for a number of cartridges, inserted into certain types of automatic weapons and when empty removed and replaced by a full receptacle in order to continue firing.
The World English dictionary has it as their definition 2.
a metal box or drum holding several cartridges used in some kinds of automatic firearms; it is removed and replaced when empty
Then we have the word clip, short for cartridge clip:
First, let's start with clip
clip, definition 3:
following the link takes us to :
cartridge clip
noun
a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine rifle or automatic pistol.
Also called ammunition clip.; the link simply takes the reader back to cartridge clip.
While the gun loonz might enjoy getting their knickers twisted into tight little knots, because it is not the usage THEY prefer, it is in fact perfectly correct usage, and accurate terminology. It is you, the gun loonz who have been getting your words wrong.
How fortunate you have people who fact check your assumptions, so you don't have to do so.
So, get used to it, get over it, and quit whining and making inaccurate corrections to other people using perfectly proper words that are correctly interchangeable.
If you absolutely MUST correct someone, please update your fellow gun lunatics that they are the ones who are incorrect. It will be fun for you, and you will be doing them a favor, preventing them from looking foolish when one of us corrects them instead.
image with the caption "ammunition CLIP found on Southwest airliner:
image with the caption Glock extended magazine:
"a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine"
ReplyDeleteFrom your own presented definition, there is the difference. Clips are used to hold cartridges in a magazine, not to serve as magazines themselves. Clips do not have a spring.
While I am not one that gets all freaky when someone misuses the terms, there is a definite difference between a clip and a magazine. Misuse of the words in television and movies has made "clip" the accepted term. So be it. When you are talking about them in your latest crime drama or blathering about them on the internet, no big deal. When they are mentioned in a law, the proper definition is far more important. Functionally, they are not interchangeable.
"How fortunate you have people who fact check your assumptions, so you don't have to do so."
ReplyDeleteAHHHHHH HA HA HA HA. Fact check? like you do with your 40%family 10%straw 50%stolen? Where does the 13.9% Retail and 7.4% "other" fall into those categories?
The problem here is that dictionaries these days are descriptive, not prescriptive, and tell how people use words, not what words mean. "Clip" means a strip of metal used to hold cartridges until insertion into a magazine.
ReplyDeleteDo you take the same attitude about the way many misuse the word "theory"? In science, that word has a meaning that is different from common usage. The same is true about "clip" in gun circles. If we inform you that in our technical language, the word means a particular thing, don't you imagine that we know what we're talking about? It is a subject of interest to us, after all.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteThe whole "clip v magazine" and "automatic v semi-automatic" meme are nothing but a distraction.
Whenever there is an article about some idiot shooting people with an SKS, AK-47, M-16, AR-15 or any other weapon that bears a resemblance in appearance or design and some newsie or other refers to "automatic rifle" or some such thing, the gunzloonz dysintelligentsia goes off. Same thing when a magazine is referred to a clip.
Nothing but an attempt on the gunzloonz part to shift the focus of the arguments against allowing un/disqualified persons access to firearms.
The word "automatic" is more confusing, since originally, an automatic was a self loader--what today we call a semiautomatic. My Colt Pocket Hammerless, made in 1911, has "Automatic Colt" stamped on the slide, for example. These days, we are concerned with how "automatic" gets used, since your side gets in a fit over banning various kinds of guns.
ReplyDeleteDemo,
ReplyDeleteThe antis are the ones that decided it would be a good idea to ban/control weapons based upon cosmetic features and accessories.
The problem here is that dictionaries these days are descriptive, not prescriptive, and tell how people use words, not what words mean. "Clip" means a strip of metal used to hold cartridges until insertion into a magazine.
ReplyDeleteIt's always amusing to watch Greg try to weasel his way out of something.
The antis are the ones that decided it would be a good idea to ban/control weapons based upon cosmetic features and accessories.
As I said, regulate semi-automatic weapons in the same manner as machineguns under the definition found in 26 USC 5845.
In the context of the NFA and its use as a modifier describing the manner of firearm restoration, “readily” has been read to encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has to be changed to allow it to shoot automatically; (8) feasability, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction. See S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 253, 254-55 (11th Cir. 1987) (ease and scope); United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1982) (expertise, ease, and scope); United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1973) (time and equipment); United States v. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1362 (M.D.Fla.1999) (time, ease, expertise, and equipment); United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 573-75 (D.D.C.1980) (time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability, expense, and feasibility); United States v. Cook, No. 92-1467, 1993 WL 243823, at *3-4 (6th Cir. July 6, 1993) (availability)…
The decisions of several other courts make clear that the Defendant weapon, which would require, according to Alverson’s own expert, a maximum of six hours to convert to fire automatically, “can be readily restored” under the NFA. The Eighth Circuit held that a semiautomatic rifle that would take an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop to convert to shoot automatically qualified as a “machinegun” under the NFA.10 Smith, 477 F.2d at 400; cf. United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1367 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that disassembled guns that could be made to shoot automatically were “readily restor[able]“); S.W. Daniel, Inc., 831 F.2d at 254-55 (upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts”); Alverson, 666 F.2d at 345 (concluding that an automatic weapon that was converted to fire semiautomatically prior to its sale to defendant could be “readily restored” where it could be modified to shoot automatically by filing down one of its parts); United States v. Lauchli, 371 F.2d 303, 312-13 (7th Cir.1966) (in a case prior to the addition of the “can be readily restored” language to the NFA, deciding that weapons requiring assembly to shoot automatically were machineguns under the NFA). U.S. v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416(2006)
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to weasel out of anything, and your post about clips only confirms what I'm saying. Experts in firearms use the word "clip" in a particular way, while others often misuse it. The same is true with specialized language in many fields.
"As I said, regulate semi-automatic weapons in the same manner as machineguns under the definition found in 26 USC 5845."
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to try. Of course, we all know how well that has been working for your side lately.
For me, it's all about communicating or pretending to have difficulty doing so. Our side does the first one, your side does the second.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteWe're clear in how we use langauge. We know exactly what the terms mean. We do get tired of journalists who can't be bothered to get things correct, and we despise gun control advocates who distort language to create support for their positions.