Jesus loves civies, military and LEOs.

My understanding is that enlisted military are basically the property of the U S Govt.
Signed a contract as such.
Ergo, not civilians.

Everyone else is civilian.

P.S. Props to the military men and women for standing up for America and Liberty.

My statement, just to be clear, was in no way a knock to LEO or mil.  It is an observation reflecting of the leadership.  In nearly all interviews seen of these figures, it seems, to me, they are utterly condescending to the people, and view us as subjects.  We protect you, you cannot fend for yourselves, if you have a problem with any of that, well go pound sand, because we have the power.. 

"Problem, call 911" (we'll get to you when we have a chance)
"get a big dog"
"Not only does the National Rifle Association’s philosophy and tortured logic illustrates what I am totally against, but they also take it a step further in convincing and manipulating people to think that those who serve and protect our communities are the real enemies." (Last I looked NRA was huge LEO supporters, conversely the left has been consistently the ones to vilify LEO)
Etc...

This tells me they are not only totally out of touch, the don't give two ships about your rights. 

LEO, MIL support 100%,  Political such azziz...  NO

http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/03/why-im-against-the-nras-tortured-logic/
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22424.0
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=17684.msg161790;topicseen#msg161790

My point is that anyone who gets bunched panties over the topic needs to take a breath.  I don't interchange the term clip and magazine, but don't get bunched up over it when others use the words interchangeably.  Much of that is ignorance on their part and I won't allow that to cause an undue rift between myself and individuals or groups who don't understand the definition.  Just like the word civilian. I might offer explanation in an attempt to educate, but I am not going to let it tear a hole in the universe.  Just look at how some people demonize things.  Also police in general at least those that I am more than familiar with, understand that they are civilians and don't refer to people in general as civilians, but rather the public.  Or maybe that is derogatory also?   

Which is what I was trying to do...

"The bottom line is that both terms, clip and magazine, are used almost interchangeably today to describe a detachable device for feeding the action of a firearm. Before purists chime in, let me add that back in 1909 and 1910--as the United States was looking at adopting its first self-loading pistol for widespread issue--in U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. documents it referred to the detachable box magazine for what would become the U.S. M1911 pistol as, well, a clip."

Brief article in American Rifleman:

Clips Vs. Magazines
by Mark Keefe

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/3/6/clips-vs-magazines/

And part of that is because "we" condone the continued and more widespread improper use. Words have meaning, especially when they convey aspects of the law or how big, powerful, potentially rights usurping government entities interact with citizens.

As for the Army? Well, that just shows that they  can be wrong too...

It is only through the continued improper use of the term that it has come to mean what it was never intended to mean. When you look at Title X of the USC, it describes the relationship between the military and "civilian law enforcement." So, federal law defines what a civilian is and specifically notes that the police are "civilian law enforcement." It's not about being "PC" it's about not letting popularity and increasing incorrect usage change a term that has specific and important meanings attached to it.

You can't legislate language. You can try of course but the effectiveness is questionable.

Now if the word civilian was just loosely thrown around in an incorrect manner then you might have a point, but the dictionary includes police and fire fighters as indicated. That means it is an established definition.

If we hold your logic true then we must go back to the original definition. The word traces back to 1350 to 1400 and means a student of civil law. Language evolves over time and somehow civilian came to mean a person who was not a member of the military armed services. So if people and the dictionary are using it incorrectly then so is the USC.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian

I guess the question is how far we take word correction. When you ask for a AA battery should I correct you because technically it is a cell and a battery is made of multiple cells. What people often call spoilers on car trunk lids is actually a wing. A peanut is not actually a nut but a legume.
There are countless examples but these are the only ones I can recall at this point.

So does the grammar police count as sworn personnel?