We have some pretty good submissions. My favorite two are these:
 |
 |
| Submitted by Robert | Submitted by ctdonath |
Hard to say which one I like better, but both are certainly better than my very bad joke about Dassault Clips from the other day.
UPDATE: Also check out Miguel’s submission. Plus, anyone who’s anybody these days has a Twitter account, and that’s true of Assault Clip too.
Clippy must die!
Except one misses the point and refers to magazines as clips. The way to fight ignorance isn’t to keep spreading it. The Brady Bunch have that covered, anyway.
Yes, I know the difference between a clip and a magazine.
I also know when a distinction makes little difference.
The general public uses the term “clips”.
The Brady bunch is using the term “clips”.
Expending limited attention spans on defining “clips” vs. “magazines” is a waste of time. No, really, it wastes time.
Focus on the issue, not the nuanced definitions.
And feel free to create a better submission.
Not to mention that we have been telling them the difference till we were blue in the face. They don’t care. The louder we scream “magazine!” they yell “semanatics and evil assault clips!”
At least this way, we get to have some fun at their expense.
Pardon my prior tone of annoyance.
Fact is I’m tickled Sebastian featured my spoof.
Pure genius. These are great. They need to be our mascots.
Not to mention that we have been telling them the difference till we were blue in the face. They don’t care. The louder we scream “magazine!†they yell “semanatics and evil assault clips!â€
Ignorance isn’t a great way of fighting ignorance, but more importantly we shouldn’t be so quick to adopt the language of the antis. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard gun owners refer to their ARs as “assault weapons” even though this term plays right into their hands. I’d think that underscoring how the antis don’t even know what the terms are for the things they want to ban would benefit us. In fact, I’ve found that the best way to quickly end any debate about another “assault weapon” ban us to simply ask them to define “assault weapon.” Stumbling to define something you want to ban sure takes the steam out of your argument. Anyone remember “the shoulder thing that goes up”?
So yes, I think it’s important to show their ignorance, and equally importance to not keep spreading it – especially if you claim to know better. I mean hell, why don’t we all just get it over with and start calling them “assault clips” then?
The “clip vs magazine” argument has been going on for a very long time. This is not a case of being “so quick to adopt the language of the antis”. While incorrect, the colloquial term is indeed “clip”. If you’re going to make good use of the few seconds you have to persuade a member of the target audience, you use the terms they use.
We tried the semantics argument regarding “assault weapons”, and got a 10-year ban instead of winning the debate.
Sometimes you have to concede a battle to win a war. Having been fighting on this front for 20 years, I’m not going to risk this flanking over a distinction without a difference. So what if they call ’em clips? Will we fare better if Brady et al calls ’em magazines? no.
So “assault clips” it is..
Malicious obedience is annoying. Who do you want to annoy?
I’m not saying give up and embrace the term, I’m saying know your audience and what will persuade them … and what will lose them.
I, for one, do not want to be assaulted by clippy. I assault the clip right away!
The easy way to put this semantic argument to bed is to ensure everyone owns at least one AR-15 and one M-1 Garand. The difference between a magazine and a clip will then become intuitively obvious. ;-)
(Substitute 1911 Pistol and 1917 Revolver if desired)
(Not valid when applied to politicians, journalists and other terminally vapid groups)