"clip" versus "magazine" - word usage matters?

Status
Not open for further replies.
''Just for clarity, I am the one that inferred that you made up the definition...''

That I did, or the OP did? Not trying to hijack the thread.

That the OP did. Your definition is accurate, not particularly common, but accurate.
 
I move we stop using the word "magazine" as it may get mixed up with a reading periodical and then somebody will claim the "left" is trying to outlaw gun related reading material.
 
First, I will never call a magazine a clip. To me, it isn't a clip.
However, the improper usage of the word clip has caused it to be ingrained into our language and is listed in the disctionary. So, like it or not, a clip can be a magazine.

Also, words are spoken to convey our thoughts or to describe something to another so they understand. When anyone says they bought 2 clips for their Glock, we understand what they are saying. I never understood why so many get so twisted about something so trivial.

On the other hand, using the wrong term can be a negative thing. Assault weapon is a very real example of a word(s) used wrong to portray something other than what the item actually is. Calling a magazine a clip does not create an illusion other than a device that holds ammo. No negative connotation. Calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault weapon inaccurately describes it in a negative way.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

Definition of CLIP


1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook


2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also: a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

3: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip
 
''Your definition is accurate, not particularly common, but accurate...''

It was the only definition before detachable magazines were even invented, and the common usage for seventy five out of the last hundred and thirteen years....
 
That Kubrick, would properly be refered to as a ''detachable box magazine''...what goes in an SKS or Mauser pistol is a clip, Garands take an enbloc clip.
 
Well, my father was a DI in WW2. He called them CLIPS. Magazines are what you read. Much ado about nothing. Cursed control freaks.
ll
 
so, they are still wrong.

Well, our language evolves.
I doubt you'll find anything for internet in a 1945 dictionary.

For many years, in the 70s, all photocopiers were called a Xerox machine because Xerox was the first to mass produce them. "Go make a Xerox copy" was common for a long time.

When did cell phone hit the dictionary?
The list is endless.
Words get added every year as we adopt them into the mainstream society. It used to be considered that when a word made the dictionary, it became an official word. Years ago I don't think slang was put in the big name dictionaries but today I believe you see them in all of them. Language evolves.
 
'' Well, my father was a DI in WW2. He called them CLIPS. Magazines are what you read...''

This arguement doesn't impress me much. Basicly ''my old man can whip your old man...'' My company commander kicked my ass and made me do pushups, for calling a magazine a clip. I guess he didn't know any better.
 
I get sick of hearing about this stupid debate.

They are marshaling their forces to erase our second amendment rights are we are wasting our time debating this meaningless crap. Well, whether or not YOU AGREE with the terminology, turn your guns in to the nearest police station.

:banghead:
 
Didn't we argue this last week in another thread?

.....and the week before that in another thread?

.....and the week before that in another thread?


Me, I don't care what you call 'em. Clips, mags, I know what the 'ell you're talkin' about. I care more that you have 'em and use 'em responsibly. I'd rather you be pro-gun and use poor grammar than alienate you because of improper terminology. Why the 'ell at a time like this some folks feel the need to trample our own kind is beyond me.
 
Ah yes the ''common usage'' argument'' the only one that makes any sense. Kudos to you, Larry. All I can say is that if ''everyone else does it'' is the strongest argument for calling a ''magazine'' a ''clip'', I'll refrain.
 
The distinction is no more important than "auto" vs. "semi-auto" (I mean, you all know what I'm talking about, so the exact verbage isn't important), or "assault rifle" vs. "assault-style rifle," "assault weapon," "military-style rifle", or "modern sporting rifle" (after all, we all know what is being discusssed, don't we?). Rimfires are practically centerfires in their application, and revolvers operate the same as DA semi-auto pistols, so they're the same thing, too, right?

Imprecise and sloppy use of language invariably ends up with us debating in Newspeak and listening for Dog-Whistles.

Words mean things (to paraphrase Rush who is certaintly correct on at least this matter), and to use them carelessly will result in a weak, incoherent argument that is easily subverted by others. Poorly worded legislation is the best example of "the spirit underdstood by all present" being completely irrelevant to the people who will end up interpreting and enforcing them by either exacting or arbitrary standards; whichever the law permits. We are after specific goals, therefore we must use precise language.

TCB
 
With auto versus semi-auto, you are describing the action that drives the gun. Why is a clip, a clip? Isn't a magazine something you read? Huge difference. Being accurate about an accessory or something with a random name is totally different than being accurate about the action of a gun. A carbine is a rifle but is a rifle a carbine? Is a handgun a pistol? Is a pistol a revolver? Is a revolver a semi-automatic? What is high capacity? Is it more than 5 rounds in a rifle and more than 10 in a Glock? 12? 15? 18? Some things you have to be correct on. Some things you don't have to be correct on. It's the nature of our language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top