It’s Time For a Firearms Vocabulary Lesson…

The NRABlog gives us a firearms vocabulary lesson on a few of the most commonly misused firearm terms.
Note: This article was originally posted on NRA Blog: https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/8/misused-firearms-terms/

AR-15 Rifle
AR-15 Rifle

NRAblog.com

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- When it comes to firearms, knowing proper terminology is important. From firearm mechanics to shooting skills to Second Amendment rights, understanding these terms is essential. Unfortunately, without proper instruction, many people easily use this terminology incorrectly, leading them to misunderstand firearms. Let’s clear the air and address some of the most commonly misused terms:

“Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle” vs. “AR-15”

Welcome to my biggest pet peeve. There is no such thing as a “semi-automatic assault rifle.” The liberal media is famous for using this phrase to make a certain semi-automatic rifle (i.e. the AR-15) sound scary. An assault rifle by U.S. Army definition is a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.

A semi-automatic firearm is designed to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case, and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled.

Meanwhile, a selective-fire firearm has the ability to be fired fully automatically, semi-automatically or, in some cases, in burst-fire mode at the option of the firer.

Currently manufactured AR-15s are rifles designed for civilian use and are in fact, semi-automatic. And while we’re on the subject… the AR in AR-15 does not stand for “assualt rifle.” It actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company to first produce the design of these rifles.

“Bullet” vs. “Cartridge”

This is a really common mix up that I’m even guilty of from time to time. Bullets are frequently used to describe ammunition but that’s actually not the case. A cartridge is single, complete round of ammunition that is made up of four components: casing, primer, powder, and projectile.

“Bullet” vs. “Cartridge"
“Bullet” vs. “Cartridge”

The case or casing is the envelope or container part of a cartridge. For rifles and handguns, it is usually made of brass or other metal; for shotguns it is usually of paper or plastic with a metal base and is more often called a “shell” or “hull”.

The primer is the ignition component of a cartridge, generally made up of a metallic fulminate or currently, lead styphnate.

The propellent in a cartridge is the chemical composition that is ignited by the primer to generate gas. Gun powder is the chemical substance of various compositions, particle sizes, shapes and colors that, on ignition, serves as a propellant. Today’s smokeless powder emits minimal quantities of smoke from a gun's muzzle while the older blackpowder emits relatively large quantities of whitish smoke.

The final component of the cartridge is the projectile which is expelled from a gun, aka a bullet. Bullets can be of many materials, shapes, weights and constructions such as solid lead, lead with a jacket of harder metal, round-nosed, flat-nosed, hollow-pointed, etc. This is why bullets and cartridge (or ammunition) are not the same.

“Clip” vs. “Magazine”

This is another big one that often gets confused. These words are not synonymous and actually have very different meanings. YouTuber Hickok45 explains the difference and goes over different types of magazines and clips in this video:

A clip is a device for holding a group of cartridges. It is used as a tool to transfer cartridges into a magazine. There are different styles of clips: stripper, en bloc, and moon and half-moon clips. Stripper clips act as a speed loader to transfer cartridges into a magazine and is removed before the firearm is to be used. En bloc clips are inserted as a unit into an attached magazine and are released once the last round has been fired. Moon and half moon clips are circular and used to quickly load revolvers as opposed to loading and extracting one round at a time.

On the other hand, a magazine is a spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun’s mechanism or may be detachable. There are also different types of magazines: box, tubular, and drum magazines. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives.

So essentially, clips load magazines and magazines load firearms. They are definitely not used interchangeably.

These were just a few of the most commonly misused firearm terms. To learn more terms and their definitions, check out NRA-ILA’s Glossary!

  • 97 thoughts on “It’s Time For a Firearms Vocabulary Lesson…

    1. Two things about this “by back” that I’m curious regarding.
      1. As to the monies paid to Australians who complied with the enacted law or regulations, which ever it was, where might this money have come from?
      2. Our law abiding Australian, the other sort weren’t concerned, he or she neither wanted nor needed the monies paid to them. Likely, they did want to continue the ownership of the rifle or shotgun, singular or plural involved, items with which they harmed nobody. I’m just peculiar enough to wonder as to the following.How come it seems that there, in Australia, as to some extent here in the U.S., the preferences of the law abiding seemingly get such short shrift. That might be an odd question, to some at least, but as noted above, I might be a little peculiar myself.

      1. 1. The money came from the taxpayer. The government added a levy onto Heath care taxes. Make of that what you will.
        2. Correct. Gun control is a very emotive subject and given that a large part of the population see no need for anyone to have firearms, and a lot of firearms owners are passive, the government gets support from the population (we call this democracy). Therefore people who don’t want something can control people who do. They may not have so much control, or passion, if the US could stop people using firearms to slaughter schoolchildren. That gets a lot of headway in this part of the world.
        I guess it also is meaningful that we are not afraid of our government, our army, or our police. But if we ever did need to start a revolution we could get all the arms we need from the same sources as the ISIS, Iraqis, Syrians etc etc

        1. Wbanz – 1. So you paid to have the government by your guns? STUPID.
          2. What makes you think that the people that do bad things (killing schoolchildren wold not get the arms they want for the same sources as ISIS, Iraqis and Syrians? We trust our police, but they can NOT be everywhere at once and as it has been said “9mm is faster than 911″. You like what you got great for you, but I’ve seen plenty that are not happy in your country. Guess that’s the 50/50 in your country./ As for the government you are correct, we do not trust them and the writers of the constitution knew they could not be trusted by looking as history. Something your country seems to have forgotten and you know what they say ” Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it”. Hope you don’t see it, but in the US we learned and will continue to protect and serve. You and RoadRunner51 must talk a lot and go to the same websites. To bad your education is so one sided, but sheep are like that. Just get led around by the nose and keep their minds closed.

          1. Mike, I like your little sayings “9mm is faster than 911” – how about “shoot first and ask questions later” – or “the only good injun is a dead injun”.
            We have not forgotten history. We just have not had the history you have. As a result we do not attack (and insult) everyone who has another opinion.
            For the record, I am an influential member of the shooting community in three countries, I continue to own and use self loading rifles, pistols and shotguns. I have worked to maintain Very liberal firearms laws / regulations in my current country (which, incidentally, is not Australia).
            And I find I can disagree with people without disparaging them and often get their support.
            Although I seem to be out of my depth here:)

        2. Wbanz, re yours of 14 September:

          What of those people who were not gun owners, but who believed in the old adage of Live and Let Live, who were also tax payers, and who, objected to this government double talk?

          As you correctly note, gun control is a most emotion tinged subject, unfortunately. Discussions thereabout all to often , in my opinion, get to revolve around such concepts as 2 plus 2 equaling somethings in other than 4. Let me put it as follows. Chaucer’s CanterburyTales, which I read in Junior
          High School was some of the most well written, delightful pornorgaphy that I. Have ever had the
          pleasure of reading. Some amongst the populace would burn Chaucher, as being.obscene, which it Is. So what. The vast majority of people who read Chauser or any other pornography simply read it, doing nothing else. I believe that you will see the connection to gun ownership, at least I so hope.

          As you noted, some, perhaps many gun owners, stand mute, I don’t know why, laziness perhaps. There
          Iis also that old song and dance to the effect that “The NRA Would Not let Them Do That” which of course is hogwash, a pure excuse for their own laziness.

          By the way, I suffer double talk poorly, as you might have noticed. Re this government “buy back”‘ politely put, a play on words, for the “seller” had no choice, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, what was here seen was a “taking”, alibet with some compensation, still a taking, that from the law abiding, whom some might remember.

          OThat”, which is of course, pure garbage.

    2. Re the lengthy comment from jlp, the following is, I submit, noteworthy. The great unwashed, and some gun owners too, people one might assume would know better, keep electing the same monkeys. Re the non gun owner, and how they vote/for whom they vote, one might think that they are unconcerned. Interestingly though, the following question comes to mind. What happens when these oh so concerned, it’s all for your own good types decide to, for the greater good of course, legislate or regulate away that which is of concern to the non gun owner?

    3. Confiscation comes there will be civil strife. Do not give them up…..deep six them in the lake,sell them……any means to keep them out of the government’s hands.

      1. Unfortunately it does not work that way in the real world. Penalties will usually entail a 20 year prison sentence, plus a $200,000 dollar fine plus confiscation of your bank account, property and investments. As you can see people who have jobs, a family to raise and own any property or have any investments have no other choice but to obey the law. The Stalinists know they have got you behind the 8 ball and there is nothing you can do but obey “Or Else”. The Stalinists will get 99 per cent of the weapons and without ammo what good are the remaining 1 per cent. Ammo bans go hand in hand with weapon confiscation. Its a double whammy as the Stalinists know if they do not get your weapons, they get the sources of ammo by making it too expensive, putting on outrageous permit requirements which cost you outrageous unaffordable fees.

        I watched last week the requirements in Japan that an American went through to get a permit to buy a weapon and ammo. The American had a huge double ring binder full of paperwork that took over a year to process. He had to see a psychiatrist, he had several humiliating interviews with the local Gestapo Police which demanded a complete diagram of his home and of course where his weapons were kept. He had to purchase a regulation approved gun safe with 3 regulation locks on it. The Police could invade his home at any time and at any hour to see if he had complied. All weapons had to be under lock and key and had to be disassembled. And do not think this is not already bee passed into law in some places in the U.S. Its actually really nothing knew as if you have a U.S. Federal Firearms License almost the same regulations apply in America, its only a matter of time before everyone in the U.S. that owns a gun will be required to do this. In Europe it is much the same way with the same regulations. Make it unaffordable and make the person wait at least a year and go through a mountain of paperwork to buy one gun and one box of ammo and of course you cannot use it for self defense as it will be illegal.

        As I said before the California lower Courts have already outlawed concealed carry and by de-facto let stand open carry bans as well which in essence has destroyed the Second Amendment in the State of California.

        The NRA has also warned if the Massachusetts Attorney General’s illegal outlawing of assault rifles stands that the law now re-interpreted 10 years after it was passed will make any and all semi-auto weapons illegal which includes pistols, rifles and shotguns. All with the stroke of a pen without any new law being passed. Uncle Joe Stalin is smiling in his grave as his Henchmen are alive and well and carrying on his work.

    4. Let’s get over this terminology Nazi thing.
      With our own version of political correctness, we’re getting more prissy than the liberals.
      Why do we lose bladder control when somebody calls a mag a clip? I remember back in the 50s and 60s, when even gun writers would use the term “clip” to refer to a magazine. No one suffered. No one died. No one wept or wailed.
      I mean, some terms can cause political problems, like “automatic” vs. “semiautomatic”, or the fabricated “assault weapons”. But if someone calls a cartridge a bullet, nobody goes to the hospital.
      Let’s stop attacking each other over trivial things.

      1. The bulk of this conversation never should have taken place; a terrific waste of time. Trolls and enemy operatives have to be called out, then just STOP. My friends, learn to just STOP.

        Back in 1812-1814, we almost “loss” this country over similar antics that were played out in print and in Public. You need to read the history of what was going on back then. Factions within political parties and and against political oppositions were so “busy” attacking one another, the British were devastating, and destroying entire swaths our country; including, the ransacking and burning of Washington D.C.. Read Mathew Carey’s, “Political Olive Branch.” A book that literally, “SAVED” this country. This book, this author, single-handedly, saved this country. A lesson no one is taught in any school today; and, not for over a century. Second Amendment Activists must think, write and speak smarter, especially in Public, and emphatically, when we post on the internet, than the Gun-Haters, and all their “Communication Consultants;” see my link posted earlier.

    5. While everyone is arguing about the term “Assault Rifles” it is a “moot” point at best as according to the Supreme Courts decision this summer you have no right to own any firearm what-so-ever. The Court ruled that the Sandy Hook bans were legal and that States can ban any and all weapons at will and it is legal.

      The Attorney General in Massachusetts banned all Assault Rifles by re-interpreting State law that permitted them for over 10 years. She said she did not like them so now they are banned. Dealers had 8 hours notice and she passed no new laws making this legal. Think you have Democracy and Constitutional Rights in the U.S., well your living in a fantasy world if you do.

      California made ownership of Assault Rifles illegal and to ease the shock will phase it in over 2 years. You must turn them in to be melted down “or else” and just the like the German Nazi’s used to say “everyone knows what or else means”. Black shirted Storm Troopers in the fog and night breaking down your door and guns blazing coming into your home to take them. California is also in the process of restricting ammo and licensing the ownership of ammo. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the Stalinists of California know only too well that if you make ammo too expensive and difficult to get due to outrageous regulations and paper work you ban gun use and hunting and target shooting by de-facto regulation.

      The Lower Courts this summer in California ruled that “concealed carry” is not a right because it is a threat to “them” the “power elite” and their “henchmen” who protect them. The disingenuous Court then refused to rule on “open carry” which made an end run around the Second Amendment and Scalia’s prior ruling that people did have the right to own weapons for self protection. In other words with Scalia dead the disingenuous Court simply reversed his prior ruling shortly before his death. Scalia is “dead and gone” and so is the memory of his ruling that tried to save the Second Amendment from final destruction.

      The reality of the situation is that the Constitution does not mean what it says it means, even though it is written in “plain English” rather the Constitution says what the disingenuous Supreme Court says it means and they rule according to Public Opinion and desire, which they have consistently done for decades and decades. For example: American citizens of Japanese ancestry were put in Concentration Camps in WWII losing their homes, jobs and places of business, laws held Constitutional in the past that forbade interracial marriage, laws that dictated what kind of sex one had in the privacy of your bedroom, laws forbidding certain races of people from eating in “all white restaurants, or drinking from “white only fountains”, or laws making minorities sit in the back of a bus, laws forbidding minorities from owning guns. The list goes on and on and it was popular then so the Court looked the other way.

      Gun owners are now “The New “N” people with no 2nd Amendment rights what-so-ever because the Second Amendment and Gun Owners are now considered “Persona Non-Grata” by the brainwashed public at large. The “Ruling Elite” have declared for propaganda purposes “the death of one gun owner who failed to turn in his guns would be a human tragedy but the death of 100 million gun owners would only be a statistic”.

      With the new Supreme Court Rulings now in place the Australian style gun confiscation with weapons thrown out into the streets and front end loaders picking them up to be crushed and melted down is only a short time away. California already passed such a law and the rest of the States will soon follow as well and if you want to go on living and breathing there is nothing any one of us can do about it. With this new Presidential election it is being predicted that the Democrats will control both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court will be stacked against us as well. We would have a better chance of wining the lottery than keeping our gun rights.

      1. @jlp When you write, “…Supreme Courts decision this summer you have no right to own any firearm what-so-ever. The Court ruled that the Sandy Hook bans were legal and that States can ban any and all weapons at will…” what case are you referring to, please.

        1. The ruling was discussed on many “gun web sites” including “The Truth About Guns” and the NRA Website and was written up in “The Gun Mag” news paper (formerly Gun Week). This is not new news its been out there for several months.

        2. I am referring to the “Sandy Hook” bans on semi-auto weapons. It was not only on the various gun publications (see my lower post) but it made news in all the Major News Papers as well as they were shouting with glee form the roof tops over it.

          1. @jlp, I don’t know how I could have missed it. It must be my stogy nature and reclusive lifestyle. Haven’t got a case name, by any chance?

      2. If you want to get your terminology right, you also need to get your facts right. In Australia weapons were not thrown into the street. There was a buy back programme where you took your firearms to a police station and were paid a preset amount depending on the type of firearm. The amounts paid were based on market value.

        1. Wbanz: First, it could not have been a “buy back: program because the government never owned the firearms in the first place so they couldn’t buy BACK what they never had.
          Secondly, just because they paid the owners something for their guns (didn’t matter if it was a $100 gun or a $50,000 collectible, the owner got the same paltry payment) the fact that the government REQUIRED the guns to be turned in doesn’t change anything because a few bucks were given. The owners HAD NO CHOICE. This is confiscation in disguise.

          1. First. I did not say it was not confiscation, it was.
            But if we talk rubbish in this forum we are just feeding the argument that gun owners are not responsible (or even rational) people. The Aussies Were not THROWING GUNS IN THE STREET.
            Second. It was formally designated legally as the Firearms Buyback Programme regardless of your semantics.
            Refer Wikipedia “A gun buyback program is one instituted to purchase privately owned firearms.”
            Thirdly! It did not apply to firearms owned by collectors or dealers.
            Fourthly the Australian constitution requires government to pay fair compensation
            And fifth, I got $1500 for an SKS that I paid $350 for.
            NEVERTHELESS they made commonly used firearms illegal and took them out of circulation. That was followed in 2003 by a similar programme for pistols for which there was an exemption made for specific types of pistols used for Olympic type sports.
            Australians argue that they need firearms for hunting, vermin control, and sports. Not for self defence, and certainly to to protect the people against the government.
            The US situation is entirely different.
            So these are the facts. If we talk rubbish the media will be able rubbish us

            1. Wbanz, Just makes me glad I’m not an Aussie. lad you got lot’s of money for your gun. Just remember that the muslim’s want to own the world so when they come into your country and start beheading people, hold that money and see how much protection it gives you. Also it must be really nice to be a collector or dealer. What does your ‘government’ say a collector is? I bet the people did not get to decide what was or was not a collection. Dealers must be dancing in the street for all the people coming in to but a gun and pay all the fee’s and taxes. No thanks, you allowed your government to turn you into sheep. To bad, so sad for you!

    6. The pistol designed by John Browning and adopted for use by the U. S. Armed Forces in 1911 has two major variants. A pistol purchased and owned by the U. S. Government for issue to government personnel was originally a pistol, M1911 or after 1926 designated M1911A1. The same design produced by Colt for commercial sale is a “Government Model”.

      Copies of relatively recent times are neither, but do derive from the original design. Check the actual manufacturer for the actual model name.

    7. I am a Life Member ot the TSRA so please don’t call me an anti-gun nut. But I believe it is just semantics to describe an AR-15 as a “Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle” vs. a “Semi-Automatic Rifle”. My reasoning; the rifle was first desgined as an “assault rifle” with selective fire then a civilian version with semi-auto fire only was developed. Essentially they are the same firearm with that distinction. So I believe both descriptions accurately describe the AR-15. If the term “Assualt Rifle” only is used to describe an AR-15 I would say that would be incorrect since it does not have the full-auto feature.

      1. Tom, I think you need to resign your TSRA membership or understand that we need to remove the word “Assault” from the description of any guns used by law-abiding citizens. This should be obvious to anyone supporting our Second Amendment rights as we have enough trouble convincing non-gun owners that we mean no harm (except in self-defense).
        Or, are you a troll like IWDuggan?

      2. @Tom Thornell, I am a TSRA life member, too. and thank you for your participation. We must not play into the hands of our Second Amendment Civil Rights enemies. It is just semantics, but it is semantics that the politicians will use to deceive uneducated voters.

    8. Yutube Hicocker is 100 per cent wrong. Clip and Magazine have been used interchangeably for over 100 years. Even the U.S. Military manual on the 1911 Pistol in the year 1911 used the term 7 round clip not 7 round magazine for the description of the operation of the 1911 pistol. In modern times most people do not even use the word “Magazine” anymore its been replaced by “30 round clip” for decades. A clip is a detachable feeding device mostly in reference to a detachable box holding numerous cartridges. The only time anyone uses the word “Magazine” is when they would be referring to a fixed tubular feeding device found on a pump action shotgun or tubular feeding .22 rim fire. Tell Hickok he is still living back in the 18th century. Please move into the 21st Century.

      1. @jlp, Are you sure? I thought that the term “clip” came from the nomenclature “en bloc clip” from the M-1 Garand, so it could not be over 100 years.

        1. There is a complete story about the term clip and magazine being used interchangeably at the NRA web site. The term clip goes back a long time in history. Stripper clips were being used on the 1891 German Mauser Rifle.

      2. jlp: Funny because my copy of the FM for the 1911 (dated 1912) does NOT use the term “clip” anywhere. It (properly) uses the term “magazine”. Can you show me a reference where “clip” is used? I believe that you are just passing along a myth that you heard somewhere.

        1. Again go to the NRA web site as they have the “facts” on the use of the word “clip and magazine” they do not rely on internet chatter. The NRA author is Mark Keefe IV, Editor in Chief.

          P.S. I have a colleague who collects old military manuals and I have seen them and yes they do indeed call the feeding device “a clip” for the 1911. And yes you can call this “Internet Chatter” so go to the NRA website for the “facts”.

    9. Can someone tell me when we started having to refer to a double action revolver as a “double action / single action revolver”. It just drives me crazy. The are single action and double actions, and unless identified as a “double action only” revolver, then we know what they are referring to. Even 10 to 15 years ago I never heard anyone in person, print, television or radio refer to a DA as a DA/SA. Sounds like more political correctness!

    10. No one has ever been able to explain to me how gun registration makes this a safer country. Gun registration just tells the antis what you have and just makes it easier to round them up. I’m tired of hearing police “brass” attribute their city’s obscene gun homicide rates to “the lack of controls on guns and the ease of acquiring them.” We have an enormous number of laws and regulations applicable to firearms. Law enforcement should worry about enforcing the laws, not bemoaning rhe absence of laws that make me–and virtually all law abiding gun owning ctizens–a new class of criminals simply because we read, believe in and act according to the Constitution of the United States.

    11. Yeah, I know, “gun” weapon pistol sidearm revolver. You can’t fight 70 years at the movies and 50+ years of cop operas on T.V.

    12. I am a rifle and shotgun and handgun owner and served in the military in Vietnam. Once, before Vietnam, I tried to register a Colt .357 Magnum as I didn’t want to carry the .45 in Vietnam. In Kentucky there was no registration process. Perhaps you can see where I am going. I believe all weapons should be registered for the safety of the owner and the weapon’s future use and ownership. I believe the need for this goes much beyond the amendment which speaks to the “right to bear arms” which, I strongly believe, speaks only to a militia fighting to protect our country at its inception. No matter who we are and what we believe, we must all address the correct use of firearms in our community. The NRA represents the gun manufacturers under the guise of representing firearm owners. We must protect firearm ownership but not at the expense of the lives of our children, our family, our neighbors and our community.

      1. Historical Fact sir:

        Registration of firearms leads to the confiscation thereof. Read history, and I do not refer to ancient history either.

      2. @IWDugan, I don’t think that anyone who writes, “I believe all weapons should be registered for the safety of the owner and the weapon’s future use and ownership. I believe the need for this goes much beyond the amendment which speaks to the “right to bear arms” which, I strongly believe, speaks only to a militia fighting to protect our country at its inception.” has any knowledge of case law or history. If you really are a Vietnam vet then you must have been a REMF.

        1. Adolf Hitler, Juan D. Peron and Hugo Chavez, among others, made good use of gun registration lists, remember? Let us not give support to Mullah Hussein or The Hildebeeste, because both want the US citizen disarmed, declawed, defanged and neutered.

        2. Registration of firearms leads to the confiscation of firearms, a fact amply displayed by recent and not so recent history. Of course, one can deny this fact, just as some continue to claim that the earth is flat.

      3. Registration serves no purpose other than to facilitate future confiscation. And divisive drivel about how the NRA only represents the “big, bad gun industry” is propaganda spewd by the gun grabbers. You’ve shown your stripes, lackey.

      4. @IWDugan, Why would you want to register a non-issue weapon before taking it with you to a combat zone? Where did you think that you were going to get ammunition for it? How did you think that you were going to get the Colt . (what model Colt) back into the U.S? Did you know that the U.S. is a signatory to the Hague Conventions governing the conduct of war, and you can only use weapons and ammunition issued by the U.S. military to insure that we are not violating that treaty? What you write is very suspicious. What was your MOS?

      5. Ref: IWDugan

        Sir,

        >“I believe the need for this goes much beyond the amendment which speaks to the “right to bear arms” which, I strongly believe, speaks only to a militia fighting to protect our country at its inception.”

        Your belief is erroneous. I studied Constitutional History of the U.S. from the Magna Carta Libertatum through about 1930 at the University of New Mexico in 1973. You really need to keep up on historical and current events.

        >I strongly believe, speaks only to a militia fighting to protect our country at its inception.

        Google on: Scalia Defends Originalism as Best Methodology for Judging Law; you’ll see that your definition and understanding of the word militia is incorrect.

        Reference a number articles on the web. Use Google or Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:

        ‘On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”. Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.’

        In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”(id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]

        Also Reference McDonald v. Chicago in 2010:

        In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court: ‘But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court’s dominant conservatives, said: “It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

        And my personal favorite from Judge Alexkozinski:

        “The second amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — Where the government refused to stand for reelection and silences those who protest, where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

        Silveira v Lockger
        328 F. 3d 567 (2003)
        Judge Alexkozinski
        9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

        As to your statement: “The NRA represents the gun manufacturers under the guise of representing firearm owners.”

        ‘The NRA’s mission statement, summarized from its bylaws, is: “To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms.” The statement also includes a focus on promoting public safety, training in the safe and efficient handling of small arms, hunter safety, and shooting sport promotion.’

        The NRA does not represent gun manufacturers under the guise of representing firearm owners. Founded in 1871, it is the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the country.

        Art Cannon

      6. You obviously got a hold of the propaganda from “Hand Gun Control” or you are a speech writer for Hitler Clinton. Criminals the world over have access to guns and bombs and they obey no gun ban laws. Mentally Ill people obey no gun ban laws either. So your registration scheme represents the ability to confiscate, at first certain classes of firearms followed of course very soon by new bans on other classes of weapons which will also be confiscated. Its easier than taking candy from a baby. This is the true aim of gun registration. It was used by every other Country in the world to take away weapons and some U.S. Cities and States have already done the same thing. Read my post on what “The Peoples Republic of California just did. You guessed it. they are going to the registration records to confiscate all semi-auto rifles because they just passed a law to confiscate them.

    13. It seems that every time an “anti” goes into their rant about guns, we “pros” retort by criticizing their improper use of gun or ammunition related terms.
      While I believe education on proper gun related terms is important, I believe we are just painted as “pickers of nits” with our criticisms.
      I believe while mild semantic correction is in order, we should focus our responses on the virtues of being self-reliant in a society seemingly fixated on having “someone else” take care of our needs.
      With more and more people choosing to hunt “Pok-E-Mons” instead of real game animal food, we should recognize that, as a country, we are developing a HUGE soft underbelly of dependence and continue to point out the real need to be our individual first line of defense!

      1. @David, I think that it is important to control the language of the debate because our anti-Second Amendment Civil Rights opponents intentionally imply false facts, premises and conclusions with made up terms and deceptive phrases. Calling them on their language shows the world that they really don’t know what they are talking about.

    14. My least favorite phrase is “Gun Violence”, used in virtually all the media, even those who try to present our side.
      Firearms are inanimate; the violence is from human sources.

    15. In Pa. too though a contribution to the county sheriff’s election campaign might help some. Personally, I don’t understand why anyone would willingly put up with the federal baloney involved, but that’s just my opinion or position.

    16. One thing you will never see in United State are American Refugees! When things get bad enough we will open our gun safes, lock and load, and fix the problems. Semper Fi

    17. At the risk of seeming stuffy, re the word games played by the anti gunners, their media and political allies, how many here have brought their verbal mayhem to the attention of their “congress critters”? The exercise might prove worthwhile. You might also try to correct media abuse of the English language, though this might well be a loosing battle.

          1. @Alan, Sometimes the spell checker changes what one types so quickly and unnoticeably, in mid word, that the computer introduced error slip by.

    18. Our side must learn to use the correct words and phrases; language is important. Especially so, when the Maggot Media takes everything out of context and is, decidedly gun-hating. The enemy is equally aware of the importance of language. Gun-hating deep pockets, most likely Soros or Bloomberg, spent several hundred thousand dollars to have three “communication consultants” create a “messaging” document; “PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING.” link: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf Read this document. You need look at how the gun-haters are twisting words to fit their evil agenda. Second Amendment supporters must think and speak accurately and not allow the gun-haters to define words and how those words are used. Here are a mere two examples: no such thing as a “high capacity magazine,” we only use “standard capacity magazines;” and, 99.99% of civilians don’t have access to an “assault rifle,” we use “modern sporting rifles.”

    19. Many still define a cartridge as the case. A cartridge by dictionary definition is something used to hold all of the components. A cartridge holds the bullet, powder and primer.
      A cartridge can be a spent cartridge or it can be a loaded cartridge.
      A magazine can sometimes be loaded from a clip (stripper clip) or a drop-in clip can be dropped into the magazine of an M-1 Garand.

    20. It is also time to quit incorrectly stating the Natural Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms that exists because we do as, 1. A “Constitutional Right” and, 2. A or the 2nd Amendment Right. It is neither. It is not a Constitutional Right as the Constitution DOES NOT Grant or Provide Rights, to state it that way purports to say it does. It is not a 2nd Amendment Right either as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to remind and restrict the power of Government, it provides and grants NOTHING. To state it as a 2nd Amendment Right purports to say that it the 2nd amendment did not exist neither would the Right to Keep and Bear Arms exist. The verbiage in the 2nd Amendment states that there is a Right, nowhere does it state to PROVIDE that Right.

    21. So nice this article was written. I get tired of hearing mags refered to as clips and when i go to the store getting projectiles the people always correct me and let me know that what i want is bullets but if i say i need some 9mm bullets they ask what brand and what size and turn to the cartridges. Lol. The other terms that bother me is that three rifles a shotgun and a pistol or two now constitutes an arsenal in the news. I was trained to refer to my m16 and 1911 as weapons but in my concealed carry class the instructor jumped me for not calling them guns and said i would have problems in court if i called my gun a weapon. I thought my gun was for fun. For the last issue, i am glad i read this article because i lernt a nu werd. (Firer) humm, i always used operator but now after watching the news, i know the proper word is shooter. I wish that people would quit chainging definitions of old words and make new ones instead so they would know what i really mean when i speak and that i am intentionally not being P.C.

    22. And one more abiguity that bothers us shotgun reloaders: an empty “cartridge case” for a shotgun is a hull. It is not a shell until it is complete and ready to fire. Empty hull, ready to use shell. You won’t find anyone who sells shotgun reloading supplies who has empty shells for sale.

    23. I’m glad to see articles such as this. It’s frustrating to listen to speech such as the news media describe gun nomenclature completely wrong, but it’s worse when gun owners also do so. “Clip” is one of the most prevalent, used when it should be “magazine”. Another one that grates me is the news media’s “shell casing”, or “bullet casing” term for cartridge case. The author of this article gets that wrong, but barely, calling it a “casing”. It’s a Cartridge case. There are all kinds of casings in the world. like sausage casing, even egg shells are casings of a sort. So let’s be specific. Cartridge case.

      1. Agree with all you. say. Can I add another that grates on my nerves? Someone (even companies) offer for sale “100 ROUNDS of once-fired brass”. It’s not a “round” if it’s just the case.
        Haven’t found the definitive answer where that term came from but the best one so far is when the U.S. Army was using muzzle loading rifles. When they went out on patrol they were issued “a hundred rounds of ammunition” with a “round” consisting of 100 lead bullets, 100 caps and enough powder to load 100 times. When the integral case was introduced to hold the other three components, the name stuck.
        Anybody else have an idea for the term “round’s” origination?

    24. Don’t forget the Clipazine, this was developed by the firearm genius Kevin de Leon of Kommieforniastan. They enable you to fire 400 rounds a second with your AR. Sadly they are in short supply.

        1. You are correct, Lex. It’s just too bad that Armalite didn’t foresee what the anti-gunners would do with the name. But, I guess no matter what they paired their initial (“A”) with it would have been struck with “Assault”. Crazy how intelligent politicians (an oxymoron?) use that term officially with “assault” is a verb not a noun, and ANYTHING can be an “Assault XXX.” Assault golf club, assault rock, assault knife, etc.
          Also, why does the media always use terms like “gunman” and “shooter” but never “knifeman” or “stabber”? They ONLY time they incorporate the weapon into the killer’s descriptive name is when it’s a gun. I want to see “clubman”, “hammerman”, “footman”, etc. used by the media. Should I hold my breath?
          Could this POSSIBLY be media bias????

          1. In retrospect, and for future reference, what the anti gunners will do with anything could otherwise be described as “cheating, lying, stealing”. Add to that such as you think appropriate.

    25. Please make sure your forward this article to the presstitutes of Mullah Hussein’s and the Hildebeeste’s fawning LameStream EneMedia (not that they will pay attention…).

    26. The reason they are trying to get rid of Guns is a Simple One! They are and are going to continue to do things that they know that we will shoot them for doing!

    27. One needs to realize that many or most of the people who misuse and or muddle firearms related terminology, or for that matter, most any technical terminology do not know top from bottom re that on which they speak, and that is putting the least unfavorable facade on the thing.

    28. One also shoots for a group, not a grouping and a cartridge case is a case not a casing. Casings are found on sausages. A shotgun is a shotgun not a “shotty” and the company that most likely made it is Remington, not “Remmy”.

      1. You got That Right! It drives me up a wall to see those terms used, but it does tell me a Lot about those using the terms – NOT to be believed or trusted in any way!

    29. I do not recall to whom the following might be attributed, but re the semantic games played by our anti gun friends, the following observation stands out. While figures might not lie, liars figure.

    Leave a Comment 97 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *