User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:34:48 PM EDT
[#1]
I know where you're coming from, sort of. I work at a UW campus, and I know what it's like to be completely surrounded by liberals. I'm in lib central at a "environmental" college, so even more so. Every day is a struggle for me, but I am gaining intel...I mean infor...I mean experience..............that I am grateful for.
For the record, my salary and benefits are soft money program revenue, not tax payer funded like most of the comrades working off of your taxes. And yes, I will be giving up the tax payer supported portion of my involuntary pension as I will be moving on before I am vested. You're tax payer dollars will go to further enrich some liberal hack instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:35:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Dude, fuck that tltr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:35:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was thinking oh boy, wonder how they will act when the wrongful death lawsuit gets filed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It'd be a shame if that policy made the local news and was subsequently challenged in court in regards to its constitutionality.  I was thinking oh boy, wonder how they will act when the wrongful death lawsuit gets filed. They don't care. It's not their money and their willing to spend as much other of peoples money as it takes to defend their liberal views. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:36:21 PM EDT
[#4]
The icing on the cake was when one of the medical directors for the system said "while I doubt this policy is constitutional, I'm of the opinion that we should pass it and operate under the policy until it is ruled unconstitutional by a court." That right there should be illegal. Knowingly passing a law/rule that is unconstitutional is unethical. You are depriving the people of their rights until someone is willing to be the test case to overturn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:37:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Every single one of my kin up in wiscaaansin are fudds... if they happen to own a gun. So here's my surprised face
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:37:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Longest that of the day.
TL; DR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:37:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... Says the guy with 20,000 posts... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation.  ... Says the guy with 20,000 posts... DenzelBoom.gif
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:38:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are EMTs not capable of securing the weapon into a lock box in the ambulance? Contrary to popular progressive liberal belief, you don't need a PHD in weapons technology to secure a pistol... That was discussed, but the various arguments I heard against the lockboxes were a) not all paramedics are comfortable securing/handling firearms, b) not all paramedics have training on securing/handling firearms, c) the company legal department said no effing way do they want their medics doing that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:39:32 PM EDT
[#9]
I was blacklisted at my church for even wanting to discuss whether the no-concealed carry signs should have went up without reviewing the whole security issue with the trustees of which I was a member. The trustees were told it was a "church mandate", which is not true. A quorum wa not present. Other trustees had no problem with our minister handling it this way.
Now looking for a more "tolerant" church. To coin a phrase, if we don't hang together, we will all hang separately. Good for you OP. Nice of them to admit it was unconstitutional, I am sure the attorneys for the family of the first victim of of this policy will appreciate that testimony at the civil lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:39:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are EMTs not capable of securing the weapon into a lock box in the ambulance? Contrary to popular progressive liberal belief, you don't need a PHD in weapons technology to secure a pistol... Probably liability. That doesn't make it less idiotic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:40:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good case for SAF This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:41:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It'd be a shame if that policy made the local news and was subsequently challenged in court in regards to its constitutionality. I like it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:41:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excuse us for not being all that interested in your life.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation.
I will never understand people who click on post, then decide it is too long to read, then instead of just moving on take about the same time it would have taken to read the post to instead make a post commenting on the fact that they didn't want to read the post because it was too long for them. Crazy world we live in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:44:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have a friend put on gun. Call 911. Refuse to disarm. File lawsuit. Prove unconstitutional. Seeing how well cities like Chicago, D.C., or states like Maryland, California, or New York have done such a stand-up job defending citizens' 2A rights, I highly doubt the liberal courts of Minnesota would fare much better. I would actually wager some judge(s) would find it constitutional some how. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:44:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Anyway, point of this diatribe is to remind you all what type of people you are up against, their thoughts about gun owners and firearms, and the local power they wield in policy making decisions. Since people like polls, I added one! Being in WI, you really should have known better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:45:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TL;DR Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Says "now with poll" but there is no poll  You expect too much from a govt employee Man, this instant-gratification "I want it now" society we have created is really pathetic. I mean really people, I got the poll up in a minute or two. My eight and ten year old kids have more patience than you guys (and apparently read longer books). TL;DR That actually made me snicker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:45:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation. I agree. The attention span of some of the neckbeards here on GD is abysmal. You had proper punctuation and paragraphs, it wasn't a big problem for me. To answer your question, you made a reasonable case, and as long as you didn't persist and persist, you can probably still fly under the radar. My work right now is in the creative world, oh boy do I have to stay under the radar! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:46:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will never understand people who click on post, then decide it is too long to read, then instead of just moving on take about the same time it would have taken to read the post to instead make a post commenting on the fact that they didn't want to read the post because it was too long for them. Crazy world we live in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation.
I will never understand people who click on post, then decide it is too long to read, then instead of just moving on take about the same time it would have taken to read the post to instead make a post commenting on the fact that they didn't want to read the post because it was too long for them. Crazy world we live in. Is that incredibly long, single fucking sentence your solution to getting us to read more of what you write?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:47:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation. I'll wait for the cliffnotes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:48:10 PM EDT
[#20]
It's the government. They want us all black listed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:48:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every single one of my kin up in wiscaaansin are fudds... if they happen to own a gun. So here's my surprised face I actually work in Minnesota (which is where this all took place). But yeah, I agree with you. My wife has extended family all over the Midwest, from Iowa to Minnesota to the Dakotas, and oddly while they are all sportsmen almost all are Democrats and FUDDS. I think it is because most are union mill workers and were raised in union mill households. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:49:09 PM EDT
[#22]
I guess if you're carrying in a car accident (or any accident for that matter), seriously injured, and your weapon is discovered, you should kiss your ass goodbye? UGH.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:50:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being in WI, you really should have known better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyway, point of this diatribe is to remind you all what type of people you are up against, their thoughts about gun owners and firearms, and the local power they wield in policy making decisions. Since people like polls, I added one! Being in WI, you really should have known better. Live in WI, but work in MN. But yeah, you are probably right. Although WI is kinda, maybe, turning purple...people elected Walker and he survived a recall. Might someday be a red state, who knows. Crazy times we live in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:51:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that incredibly long, single fucking sentence your solution to getting us to read more of what you write? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR It's at most four paragraphs. If your too lazy to read "all that" then God help this nation.
I will never understand people who click on post, then decide it is too long to read, then instead of just moving on take about the same time it would have taken to read the post to instead make a post commenting on the fact that they didn't want to read the post because it was too long for them. Crazy world we live in. Is that incredibly long, single fucking sentence your solution to getting us to read more of what you write? Apparently it is working.  I hope that sentence wasn't too long for the TL;DR crowd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:53:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't sweat it. They got their way and will forget it tomorrow. Pretty much Liberal sheep graze on their own ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 5:56:51 PM EDT
[#26]
Not sure I understand the stance that someone with a weapon is inherently dangerous. Do they have a similar policy to deal with someone who is carrying a folder, razor/ safety knife?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:01:46 PM EDT
[#27]
I realized after the meeting I probably outed myself as a conservative and gun owner You outed yourself as someone who believes in gun rights, but it doesn't follow from that you also outed yourself as a "conservative." A so-called "liberal" who believes in gun rights would have taken the same position. I don't understand this litmus test polarization that has seemingly taken over the country. In other words, that if you belong to Tribe X you have to subscribe to all of Tribe X's "official positions." That means that people are no longer thinking for themselves on an issue-by-issue basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:02:32 PM EDT
[#28]
I answered kept your mouth shut. Not because I think you should have acquiesced but because (at least in my state) you are kind of wrong. Not because in and of itself the gun or gun owner is dangerous, but because you can't take that patient into the hospital with a gun (as far as I know all hospitals are gun free). So, what do you do with the gun once you get to the hospital? You take on liability by taking possession of the gun. Plus, what if in the course of your treatment you administer a Narc, now you just turned the gun owner into a felon. Or again, you took possession of a gun in your ambulance and what do you do with it when you return to service. I have absolutely no problem with gun owners obviously, but I can't wait until you get discharged to give you back your gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:02:59 PM EDT
[#29]
I was having a seizure in the middle of the night. Back was sore so I was sleeping on a recliner with a gun by my side. Wife called 911 EMT arrived lifted me up and saw the gun. Wife says she said I'll take it and lock it up. A cop had showed up with the EMT he would not let her touch it he took it and she walked him to the safe. Nothing happened until the gun was locked up.
My problem with waiting for a cop to show before EMT will act puts the victim at a great risk. A stroke or heart attack victim needs care NOW. If I had died my wife would have sued. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:10:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure I understand the stance that someone with a weapon is inherently dangerous. Do they have a similar policy to deal with someone who is carrying a folder, razor/ safety knife? This is how they think of it (based on my understanding of their arguments): Person with a knife = not inherently dangerous Person with a baton = not inherently dangerous Person with a hammer = not inherently dangerous Person with a firearm = inherently dangerous There is little logic to it, but would you expect less from liberals when it comes to firearms? While the policy simply refers to "weapons," the focus was on firearms. There was no discussion of withholding treatment/transport, or calling law enforcement to the scene, if the patient has pepper spray or a pocket knife, just a firearm. And bear in mind, this wasn't for unsecured scenes, crime scene, or patients exhibiting dangerous signs, but just someone who is acting normal, not perceived as a threat, and discovered to have a firearm on their person. It was a given if the scene was dangerous, or the patient acting like a threat, that EMS would wait for law enforcement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:11:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR Where the fuck is the TL;DR version?!? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:14:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I answered kept your mouth shut. Not because I think you should have acquiesced but because (at least in my state) you are kind of wrong. Not because in and of itself the gun or gun owner is dangerous, but because you can't take that patient into the hospital with a gun (as far as I know all hospitals are gun free). So, what do you do with the gun once you get to the hospital? You take on liability by taking possession of the gun. Plus, what if in the course of your treatment you administer a Narc, now you just turned the gun owner into a felon. Or again, you took possession of a gun in your ambulance and what do you do with it when you return to service. I have absolutely no problem with gun owners obviously, but I can't wait until you get discharged to give you back your gun. In many (most?) states those signs have little legal bearing. I know in the state where I work (MN) they have no legal bearing. Even the government buildings where I work have them, but in very small print say people lawfully carrying are exempt. The only places I'm aware of where they have (federal) statutory bearing is federal buildings, courts, schools, and churches (I think). Should always know your state's laws though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:15:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was having a seizure in the middle of the night. Back was sore so I was sleeping on a recliner with a gun by my side. Wife called 911 EMT arrived lifted me up and saw the gun. Wife says she said I'll take it and lock it up. A cop had showed up with the EMT he would not let her touch it he took it and she walked him to the safe. Nothing happened until the gun was locked up. My problem with waiting for a cop to show before EMT will act puts the victim at a great risk. A stroke or heart attack victim needs care NOW. If I had died my wife would have sued. I would have treated you and your weapon would have been secured by your wife. No big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:18:13 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Snip Perhaps you could have reminded them that it is a violation of FEDERAL LAW to refuse emergency treatment to anyone. I do not think there are exceptions in the law for "lawfully armed citizens". Remind them they would be subject to arrest and prosecution both individually and as a group (conspiracy to violate Federal law). It is also against Federal law (and most state laws) to violate the civil rights of citizens, which this would absolutely fall under. Again, no immunity from prosecution for any of those involved as they would/will be violating the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:20:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where the fuck is the TL;DR version?!? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good lord im not reading all that,,,sorry. TL:DR Where the fuck is the TL;DR version?!? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You have time to post "TL;DR," you have time to read the original post. Not asking you to read Moby Dick here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:25:55 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps you could have reminded them that it is a violation of FEDERAL LAW to refuse emergency treatment to anyone. I do not think there are exceptions in the law for "lawfully armed citizens". Remind them they would be subject to arrest and prosecution both individually and as a group (conspiracy to violate Federal law). It is also against Federal law (and most state laws) to violate the civil rights of citizens, which this would absolutely fall under. Again, no immunity from prosecution for any of those involved as they would/will be violating the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Snip Perhaps you could have reminded them that it is a violation of FEDERAL LAW to refuse emergency treatment to anyone. I do not think there are exceptions in the law for "lawfully armed citizens". Remind them they would be subject to arrest and prosecution both individually and as a group (conspiracy to violate Federal law). It is also against Federal law (and most state laws) to violate the civil rights of citizens, which this would absolutely fall under. Again, no immunity from prosecution for any of those involved as they would/will be violating the law. If you are referring to EMTALA, I don't think that would be applicable in this situation. As I recall (not an attorney and definitely could be wrong) EMTALA is only applicable to a hospital emergency department refusing to screen/stabilize a patient (or more accurately, EMTALA prohibits a hospital from trying to dump a patient on another ED without conducting screening/stabilization). There is some EMTALA language that references ambulance services and bringing patients to the ED, but government owned/operated ambulance services are exempt, and federal hospitals (such as the VAMC) are also exempt from EMTALA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:26:29 PM EDT
[#37]
So I take it local EMS are too ignorant to safely handle a weapon?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:26:58 PM EDT
[#38]
I can be a real asshole somtimes. I would be wareing a nra or other pro gun shirt every day just to piss them off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:27:41 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That right there should be illegal. Knowingly passing a law/rule that is unconstitutional is unethical. You are depriving the people of their rights until someone is willing to be the test case to overturn. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The icing on the cake was when one of the medical directors for the system said "while I doubt this policy is constitutional, I'm of the opinion that we should pass it and operate under the policy until it is ruled unconstitutional by a court." That right there should be illegal. Knowingly passing a law/rule that is unconstitutional is unethical. You are depriving the people of their rights until someone is willing to be the test case to overturn. This too. Knowingly passing an unconstitutional policy/law/ordinance should result in 20 years in a pound me in the ass prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:29:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now looking for a more "tolerant" church. Come to our church, The pastor carries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:30:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Fuck'em find an activist lawyer that will challenge it in court
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:31:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I answered kept your mouth shut. Not because I think you should have acquiesced but because (at least in my state) you are kind of wrong. Not because in and of itself the gun or gun owner is dangerous, but because you can't take that patient into the hospital with a gun (as far as I know all hospitals are gun free). So, what do you do with the gun once you get to the hospital? You take on liability by taking possession of the gun. Plus, what if in the course of your treatment you administer a Narc, now you just turned the gun owner into a felon. Or again, you took possession of a gun in your ambulance and what do you do with it when you return to service. I have absolutely no problem with gun owners obviously, but I can't wait until you get discharged to give you back your gun. I can tell you what I have done myself. If there was a police officer there (like a car accident), I gave the gun to them. The reason was so the gun didn't walk off at the ER. The police didn't care, didn't make any kind of a big deal about it. They just told the guy to stop by the sub-station and get it back. If there was no police officer there, hospital security just locked it up along with the patients other valuables. Where I work now, in a small town, we carry a pistol case. You simply put the gun in the case, put a tag through the lock holes and lock it up with the narcotics. They come by the station and pick it up when they get out. No big deal. As far as I know, all the full time people working here have a CCW and couldn't care less that the guy is armed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:38:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Good read.
Good on you. Most people who'd be upset at my views, don't make the mistake of asking my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:41:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was discussed, but the various arguments I heard against the lockboxes were a) not all paramedics are comfortable securing/handling firearms, b) not all paramedics have training on securing/handling firearms, c) the company legal department said no effing way do they want their medics doing that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why are EMTs not capable of securing the weapon into a lock box in the ambulance? Contrary to popular progressive liberal belief, you don't need a PHD in weapons technology to secure a pistol... That was discussed, but the various arguments I heard against the lockboxes were a) not all paramedics are comfortable securing/handling firearms, b) not all paramedics have training on securing/handling firearms, c) the company legal department said no effing way do they want their medics doing that. Yes, and in some states (MA *cough*) that would require at least one EMT/'medic per bus to have a "License To Carry" to be in possession of the firearm. My EMT instructor, who happened to be LE, mentioned that he never refused treatment, but always called LE to take possession in these cases. Not just because of the ambulance, but hospitals don't generally allow them either in the NE - particularly those in Boston which happen to be attached to schools. I'm sure in most of the country, liability alone is the bigger issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:43:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While the policy simply refers to "weapons," the focus was on firearms. There was no discussion of withholding treatment/transport, or calling law enforcement to the scene, if the patient has pepper spray or a pocket knife, just a firearm. And bear in mind, this wasn't for unsecured scenes, crime scene, or patients exhibiting dangerous signs, but just someone who is acting normal, not perceived as a threat, and discovered to have a firearm on their person. It was a given if the scene was dangerous, or the patient acting like a threat, that EMS would wait for law enforcement. Can a policy really be a valid policy if it is that vague? You should beat them at their own game and tell them you're afraid of knives and that you absolutely insist that they - and all other items that can be construed as weapons - be explicitly included in the policy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:47:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Reminds me of a time when my CO held a moment of silence for nelson mandela and caught me spacing out. When she questioned me about it, I told her that he was a terrorist and a communist. Never had to worry about evals after that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:47:29 PM EDT
[#47]
This thread makes my fucking head hurt.
You call nine hundred and eleven for help you play by their rules. Don't like don't call. A lot of paramedics are complete ketchup dicks who could fuck up a wet dream. A conscious person who is rational is giving his firearm to a friend on scene or its going into the gun box, holstered. It will be given over to hospital security and patient can deal with them If PD is around they can handle it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:51:32 PM EDT
[#48]
What happens when a LEO encounters a firearm/holster combo they're not familiar with? If I'm pocket carrying a J-frame, what happens when the LEO pulls the gun out of my front pocket and simultaneously pulls the trigger because the holster stays in the pocket? Opening LEO up to a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:53:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Good for your for speaking up.
The single digit minority homosexual crowd won by speaking out (flagrantly), we can only continue to speak out for truth and honesty despite uninformed and unconstitutional liberal drivel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2014 6:53:07 PM EDT
[#50]
I can provide contact information for the guy who developed Virginia's EMS, Fire, Police, and Rescue personnel training on dealing with patients who possess a firearm. The course teaches first responders how to secure, safe, and unload over a dozen of the most common types of firearms.
The course is approved and adopted Virginia-wide, and was developed based on NRA course mmaterials. You should point out to the medical director of that committee that refusing treatment simply because a person legally possess a firearm is not only medical negligence, it is an open and shut violation of the patient's civil rights. This opens them up personally to civil liability that is not likely covered under malpractice isurance. It is no different than refusing treatment because the patient is LGBT claiming a fear of HIV or Hep C exposure. You should also give Alan Gura a call about this idiotic and manifestly illegal policy. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
