The US military has been calling magazines, clips and clips, magazines wince WWII? Why would they do that? link
Let me clarify for you. "The US military" is probably quite precise in their nomenclature but the people of the US military are not so precise because there was no need. They all knew their M-1s,M-14s and M-16s took magazines and they also knew when their buddy yelled "I'm out, toss me a clip" what the guy needed. Too bad so many people here have nothing better to do than debate the "Kleenex" factor, as if that proves something.
Words mean something. We aren't in the middle of a gun battle while posting on TGG. If you keep referring to an apple as an orange you should expect someone to point it out. If I was referring to something incorrectly, I'd appreciate it if someone let me know. And before you begin bloviating about more shit that no one wants to read, I understand you didn't use the wrong terminology.
It's not a big deal, which is my entire point. Why people want to make a big deal about an insignificant terminology is beyond me. We certainly do have different viewpoints here to discuss without getting bogged down in minutia. And speaking of minutia, a "clip" also referred to a small metal clip that linked Nato rounds together so they could be fed into an M-60 machine gun.
I wasn't making a big deal about it, I was simply pointing out the correct terminology. Thanks for turning it into 6 posts of nonsense.
This might mean something regarding the Pulse attack but it also may be more pertinent to Mateen's father and his financial dealings. It seems the old man has dubious sources of income but supports an extended family. He also has some offshore banking accounts in Germany and possibly elsewhere where he collects money for Afghanistan related endeavors. He is politically involved and has also declared himself the president in exile of Afghanistan. There's more than one story here.
It's football offensive holding and basketball traveling. You blow the whistle when it's convenient and you can control the flow of the game.
"In the wake of the Islamist terror attack that killed 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Hillary Clinton and congressional Democrats are vigorously pushing legislation to ban American citizens from purchasing guns if the federal government has a reasonable suspicion the gun may be used in a terrorist attack." Let's just take that first paragraph at face value. Is there a person here who has a real complaint with what it says? Should we not protect against those that are a reasonable threat?
There's a lot of problems beyond due process with keeping and administering these kinds of lists. First, think about their potential to be abused for political dirty tricks, which may seem remote now, but wasn't Ted Kennedy or someone originally on a no-fly list? These things are inherently dangerous to democracy. Second, think about the potential for the qualifying criteria to have overt or institutional bias built in. Forget about profiling, at some point once an algorithm spits out something like "black men in urban areas between the ages of 17 and 28 commit __% of violent crime" how do you not find a way to get them all on the list? Assuming safety is the ultimate point of the list. Finally, even with your day in court to get off the list, even assuming our civil courts are funded well enough to handle this additional workload, which is laughably inaccurate in my part of the country, the judges will have a natural bias NOT to overturn the administrative ruling that got someone on the list. This is similar to how domestic violence and stalking restraining orders work in practice. Once they are in place, they tend to stay in place because its the path of least resistance for the judge. You want to be the judge that gave someone his guns back who then goes and shoots up the mall? Probably not. There's a much easier way to deal with this problem, and its limiting the amount of lethality available to the public. Period. You can still have guns, just not certain types, like those used in Newtown, San Bernadino and Orlando. This requires no complicated government programs. I know how impressed you are with the government's efficient use of resources in general, but I think we can agree that its just not up to the task here. The FBI certainly executed its responsibilities with less than state of the art proficiency with Omar.
A lot of good points made. IMO you'd basically need to get rid of any guns that you can reload with a magazine if you wanted to accomplish the last part you mentioned.
Is it unreasonable to demand the government do what they have the legal authority to do -- clean the streets of the proliferation of illegal guns, before setting their sites on redefining the legality of guns?
Dude, it's a HELL of a lot easier to clean up all the legal guns. Finding the illegal ones would be REALLY hard. Who's got time for that? _
