Assault Clips

I’m thinking of a little Photoshop play on the Brady’s new term might be in order for folks out there who have mad Photoshop skills. Clearly the creativity department at the Brady Campaign and Brady Center are running a bit lean these days. I thought Mass Murder Magazines was actually a better term, but assault clips it is. So here’s some ideas I have, but don’t have the artistic skill to create:

  • Kind of like the Microsoft paper clip, but threatening in some way. Like he’s going to assault you.
  • Some menacing variation on a clipboard that looks scary and dangerous.
  • Know those things you use to hold bags of potato chips closed? Those can cut a leg clean open, I’m telling you.
  • Tie clips. Nuff said.

Assault weapon was an invented term, but albeit one loosely related to assault rifle, which is a real term. Assault clip is pretty unashamedly conversion of what’s normally the noun or verb “assault” to use as an adjective to make whatever object seem like something scary that needs to be banned. Also amusing they aren’t even modifying the proper noun in this case, which would be “assault magazine,” though they probably figured that would bring to mind a publication with unusually strong paper edges, making for deeper paper cuts in the minds of the uninitiated. This isn’t about correctness or truth, after all, when there are guns to be banned.

Submit any further ideas or photoshopped work in the comments.

38 thoughts on “Assault Clips”

  1. The NRA shares the definition* that magazines and clips are the same thing. The same way we do and the same way most non-gun bloggers do. Instead of arguing the nomenclature, lets try to help Congress figure out how many consecutive rounds are fired in legitimate civilian “self defense” cases… 5, 10, 11, 32, 50, 100?


  2. Early 90’s movie ” I’m Gunna Git You Sucka”….main character uses a rubber band and paperclips during an ‘assault’ on a fortified ‘crime boss’ location.

    TRULY an ‘assault clip’ in every sense of the term.

  3. Careful, Sebastian. The Brady Campaign might seek a court injunction against your assault blog.

  4. It has been freed from the clutches of the spam filter. I’ll leave it to the readers as to the level of my amusement that Akismet thinks the Bradys are spam ;)

  5. That’s just NRA avoiding wading into a controversial topic that divides gun owners. But given that one of the classic Brady tactics is finding fault lines among gun owners, and exploiting them, perhaps the use of “clip” is not as silly as I thought originally.

    But count me firmly on the side that if it encloses and feeds the ammunition, rather than acting merely as a means to insert the rounds into a fixed magazine, it’s a magazine rather than a clip.

  6. Instead of arguing the nomenclature, lets try to help Congress figure out how many consecutive rounds are fired in legitimate civilian “self defense” cases… 5, 10, 11, 32, 50, 100?

    That’s not really the point. The police feel like they need them. So strongly you know you couldn’t possibly pass a bill without their support, so they are exempted. Why just limit the analysis to civilians? Apply the same standard to the police, and ban the “assault clips” wholesale if they are only used for killing large numbers of people quickly.

    Until you’re willing to talk about that, you’re not having an honest discussion about the topic.

  7. “Instead of arguing the nomenclature, lets try to help Congress figure out how many consecutive rounds are fired in legitimate civilian “self defense” cases… 5, 10, 11, 32, 50, 100?”

    Um, because the Brady Bunch wants to ban guns more than they want to do anything about criminals or for victims? How many rounds did the assault clip that injured Jim Brady hold? Oh, that’s right, it was a revolver wasn’t it? So when does the campaign against “assault revolvers” start?

  8. The Brady Bunch might actually give us a way to educate about the difference between “clips” and “magazines.” I think we can actually get some traction highlighting the differences, with hilarity of course. And if they switch to “assault magazines” then there’s even more fun to be had.

    They’ve handed us an opportunity, and I think we should seize it :)

  9. Meh, Hitler invented the word “sturmgewehr” for the same reason: because he thought it sounded cool and scary.
    I wish we had an alternate term, because the fewer of that man’s innovations survive the happier I am.
    “Intermediate cartridge selective-fire autoloading rifle” just doesn’t have the same punch, however…

  10. That same NRA glossary says silencers/suppressors are ‘virtually prohibited’. I just sent them a message suggesting they change this to the more accurate ‘heavily regulated’.

  11. “That same NRA glossary says silencers/suppressors are ‘virtually prohibited’.”

    Maybe that’s just part of their wish list, just like banning black rifles and machine guns.

  12. If you can’t win on the facts, go to “messaging” and fool around with words. God, these people are such losers.

  13. Hey Bradyista!

    Why exactly are cops more special than others? Why don’t you just limit them as well?

  14. Sebastian, it took a long time for NRA to stop hating on black rifles (because you can’t shoot ducks with them apparently), and they still haven’t undone Hughes like they said they would. I sincerely doubt they want anything to do with suppressors (again, can’t shoot ducks with ’em).

    Anyway, let’s have a quick listen to Jim Brady talking about John Hinckley, Jr:

    Better keep that guy away from dangerous assault clips! But I wonder if this is the official Brady Bunch position?

  15. “Instead of arguing the nomenclature, lets try to help Congress figure out how many consecutive rounds are fired in legitimate civilian “self defense” cases… 5, 10, 11, 32, 50, 100?”

    Then what? Do we set the limit at the most number ever fired, or do we have congress determine an acceptable percentage of people to sacrifice? Really that high number should be tripled. A factor of safety of 3.0 is appropriate when lives are at stake.

  16. Yeah, that must be why they’ve been supporting bills loosening suppressor and machine gun restrictions in several states. Hughes is not going to get repealed anytime soon. There is not the votes to do it.

    And NRA has never supported banning rifles of any kind. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

  17. Didn’t NRA refund AAC’s money and tell them they couldn’t put a booth in their convention a while back? I realize AAC has been at recent conventions, but that just reinforces the perception that NRA is only reluctantly accepting things like suppressors and black rifles. Probably because the Fudds are getting older, and duck hunting isn’t as popular as it used to be.

    I don’t know why people would get this impression, especially since the NRA sponsors all of those subgun competitions, silencer shoots, etc. Oh, wait..

  18. I don’t recall that happening. They were at last years meeting and I can remember as far back as 2000 seeing suppressors on the floor. AAC will be at this year’s meeting as well. Plus, I’m sure it would be a surprise to the ILA people I know how own NFA stuff that NRA disapproves of NFA firearms. But here’s the full record:

    Missouri Suppressor Legalization in 2008

    Kansas NFA Legalization in 2008

    Alabama SBR in 2010

    WA Suppressors 2011

    Kansas Suppressors for Hunting in 2011

    NRA will push NFA supporting bills in places there are the votes to get it done. The reason Hughes is still with us is because there haven’t been the votes or will in Congress to do it. I’m optimistic now that at some point, we may be able to get suppressor restrictions eased. Two years ago I would not have been. MGs are still an uphill battle federally, and in most states.

  19. Is there evidence NRA pushed the WA legislation? I think it was more a case of “didn’t get in the way”, since it was pushed through by a couple of WA residents who don’t work for the NRA. I’ve been following it from their comments on various boards, the subject of NRA support didn’t come up much.

  20. Hey Brady Campaign,

    Would you be okay with me walking around with 3 firearms that had 10 round magazines?

    Would you be okay with me walking around with 2 firearms that had 15 round magazines?

    Or even 10 firearms that had a measly 3 round magazine?

    The point, which I doubt you will address, is that magazine capacity doesn’t matter if someone’s intentions are evil.

    They will find a way, don’t you agree?

    So, what good is al aw which will not make a difference?

  21. Don’t mention to the Bradyistas that the Brazil killer had a friggin’ revolver and a tiny little .32 pistol and MURDERED 11 children! He never needed those huge glock magazines in the first place!

  22. I know the difference.
    I also know when to not get hung up on a technicality.

    The general public does not differentiate “clips” from “magazines”, and will glaze over if you waste their time trying to make them acknowledged a difference. The point here is not to educate the public about semantic differences in industry terminology. We had this argument over the vapid term “assault weapon”, an argument which did not prevent the prohibition. The general public calls them “clips”, the Brady bunch is calling them “clips”, we’re not going to make headway spending precious contact time educating the uncaring about the irrelevant.

    The point here is to cut off the Brady message by reframing the debate from “reduce criminal toolsets” to “leave the law abiding alone”. Whatever those bullet holding things are called, let’s focus on informing the general public of their right to own and use ones that hold more than 5-10 rounds, and that mass murderers won’t be deterred by little things like capacity laws.

  23. Assault Clips would be a great name for a chain of macho-themed barber shops. All the female stylists could dress in uniforms, lots of shooting games while you wait etc.

  24. Pingback: Assault Clip Humor

Comments are closed.