User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:25:00 PM EDT
I have seen both claims
what is your opinion...or proof... Liars not liers 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:25:57 PM EDT
[#1]
A lie when they prove me wrong. Truth when I am right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:26:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Outliers?
Or liars? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:28:26 PM EDT
[#3]
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:28:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff.
For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:28:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues Pretty much this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:29:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Outliers? Or liars? How about bad spellers for 1000 alex
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:33:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:34:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:35:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:36:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:36:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues Pretty much this. I always loved the one on the Clinton death list. "yeah, pretty much everyone on the list died the way that it says they did and they had the stated connections to the Clintons but it is obviously false, because we say so." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:37:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always loved the one on the Clinton death list. "yeah, pretty much everyone on the list died the way that it says they did and they had the stated connections to the Clintons but it is obviously false, because we say so." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues Pretty much this. I always loved the one on the Clinton death list. "yeah, pretty much everyone on the list died the way that it says they did and they had the stated connections to the Clintons but it is obviously false, because we say so." In other words, they didn't buy the half-baked conspiracy theory you like, so they're untrusted worthy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:37:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:37:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. Yep. If I weren't so lazy I'd post a few of their left-leaning spins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:38:49 PM EDT
[#15]
They have, like everyone else, their own agenda.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:39:56 PM EDT
[#16]
I've always sort of marveled at the fact that Snopes is sort of used as a judge and jury for many topics. Who made them the gatekeepers of facts and truth?
"You know that guy that spilled coffee in his crotch at McDonalds? He got $87 million dollars in a lawsuit." "BS man. No way." "Dang right he did. I read it on Snopes." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:40:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. Pretty much nailed it. People will flip out if you try to quote them here though, despite the fact that they provide sources for all their claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:41:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always sort of marveled at the fact that Snopes is sort of used as a judge and jury for many topics. Who made them the gatekeepers of facts and truth? "You know that guy that spilled coffee in his crotch at McDonalds? He got $87 million dollars in a lawsuit." "BS man. No way." "Dang right he did. I read it on Snopes." Because they post sources and give explanations of why they gave the answer they did. That tends to lend credibility, especially when combined with a history of being right. If you have an issue with a specific claim, you can actually attempt to debunk it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:41:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I have seen both claims what is your opinion...or proof... Liars not liers Liberals. And, IIRC, they don't always reveal their source information. Sometimes they do, but not always. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:42:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always sort of marveled at the fact that Snopes is sort of used as a judge and jury for many topics. Who made them the gatekeepers of facts and truth? "You know that guy that spilled coffee in his crotch at McDonalds? He got $87 million dollars in a lawsuit." "BS man. No way." "Dang right he did. I read it on Snopes." You would make a good point if it weren't for the fact hat snopes actually has sources you can check yourself that back up their claims. This stuff isn't rocket science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:42:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? I think they do a pretty good job of de-bunking a lot of the internet falsehoods. Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:42:57 PM EDT
[#22]
I agree with the previously mentioned sentiment that Snopes is good for anecdotal bullshit, but the second it is something political or serious you can feel the strain in their voice.
That said I have always thought of Snopes as drunken wikipedia. Not an unassailable authority, but good enough to stop a bar argument over who came first Chewbacca or Ookla the Mok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:43:30 PM EDT
[#23]
truth when it fits their agenda, liars when it doesnt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:44:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: +1 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:46:26 PM EDT
[#25]
+3 fuck 'em.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:56:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Ignore the politics and they're usually pretty reliable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:58:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Both.
They include enough Truth to make them the accepted go-to source. But they are excellent propaganda for the left. Similar to the MSM, with perhaps Snopes being a little more credible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 2:59:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, for me too. I think they do a pretty good job of de-bunking a lot of the internet falsehoods. Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:02:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp There's a difference between claiming they won't cover things that have answers they don't like and claiming that they are wrong in what they cover. The former, sure. I can see that happening, even though it's going to be hard to actually prove. But whatever, we can assume that's true for now. It doesn't really invalidate anything they do cover. The latter, well, can you point out a specific rumor on that page which you feel should be rated differently and explain why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:04:45 PM EDT
[#30]
I've noticed a left wing slant in a few of their claims that involve politics. It wasn't extreme, but there were times it was noticeable.
I have to go do a few things, and it's a pain in the ass to look through the listings at that site, so maybe I'll do it later. Maybe not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:05:51 PM EDT
[#31]
They seem to be a little bit of both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:05:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp So which of the red-lit items do you believe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:06:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they post sources and give explanations of why they gave the answer they did. That tends to lend credibility, especially when combined with a history of being right. If you have an issue with a specific claim, you can actually attempt to debunk it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've always sort of marveled at the fact that Snopes is sort of used as a judge and jury for many topics. Who made them the gatekeepers of facts and truth? "You know that guy that spilled coffee in his crotch at McDonalds? He got $87 million dollars in a lawsuit." "BS man. No way." "Dang right he did. I read it on Snopes." Because they post sources and give explanations of why they gave the answer they did. That tends to lend credibility, especially when combined with a history of being right. If you have an issue with a specific claim, you can actually attempt to debunk it. It's been many years ago and I don't even remember what it was about, but I emailed them once about something they had wrong and they changed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:08:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's been many years ago and I don't even remember what it was about, but I emailed them once about something they had wrong and they changed it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always sort of marveled at the fact that Snopes is sort of used as a judge and jury for many topics. Who made them the gatekeepers of facts and truth? "You know that guy that spilled coffee in his crotch at McDonalds? He got $87 million dollars in a lawsuit." "BS man. No way." "Dang right he did. I read it on Snopes." Because they post sources and give explanations of why they gave the answer they did. That tends to lend credibility, especially when combined with a history of being right. If you have an issue with a specific claim, you can actually attempt to debunk it. It's been many years ago and I don't even remember what it was about, but I emailed them once about something they had wrong and they changed it. That's pretty neat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:09:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:15:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Liberals. And, IIRC, they don't always reveal their source information of funding. Sometimes they do, but not always. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have seen both claims what is your opinion...or proof... Liars not liers Liberals. And, IIRC, they don't always reveal their source information of funding. Sometimes they do, but not always. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:17:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a difference between claiming they won't cover things that have answers they don't like and claiming that they are wrong in what they cover. The former, sure. I can see that happening, even though it's going to be hard to actually prove. But whatever, we can assume that's true for now. It doesn't really invalidate anything they do cover. The latter, well, can you point out a specific rumor on that page which you feel should be rated differently and explain why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp There's a difference between claiming they won't cover things that have answers they don't like and claiming that they are wrong in what they cover. The former, sure. I can see that happening, even though it's going to be hard to actually prove. But whatever, we can assume that's true for now. It doesn't really invalidate anything they do cover. The latter, well, can you point out a specific rumor on that page which you feel should be rated differently and explain why? I didn't claim they were wrong, I said they spin things. I specifically said they don't outright lie. If you want an example of spin, I linked the page. Look at the "57 states" comment. That was flat true, but they took the most extreme rumor they could find so they could take up for him. Same with the Bill Ayers "rumor", same with snubbing the funeral of Maggie Thatcher. You don't have to be "wrong" to spin something, and I suspect you know that. I wonder if they'll address the "rumor" that they were more concerned with the funeral of Michael Brown than the former PM of our closest ally? You defending them is evidence enough of their slant. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:25:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Why would you go to a fact-checking site for anything political?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:28:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? I didn't read it in detail, but the way they spun what the Wookie said about comparing illegal aliens and TJ, GW and other founders was pretty obviously biased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:30:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. This....from what I Understand, all they do is google the shit out a subject to get more information on the "Stories" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:32:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't claim they were wrong, I said they spin things. I specifically said they don't outright lie. If you want an example of spin, I linked the page. Look at the "57 states" comment. That was flat true, but they took the most extreme rumor they could find so they could take up for him. Same with the Bill Ayers "rumor", same with snubbing the funeral of Maggie Thatcher. You don't have to be "wrong" to spin something, and I suspect you know that. I wonder if they'll address the "rumor" that they were more concerned with the funeral of Michael Brown than the former PM of our closest ally? You defending them is evidence enough of their slant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? Even though I've heard they lean left I can't really find any evidence of that in their Snopes articles. Here's a link to their page on Obama. Of all the crap this guy's done, it's fascinating that they have so few green lights, and of those most of them aren't damaging to him in any way. For most of the damaging stuff, they'll spin the rumor, or take the most outlandish version, so they can call something a "mix of true and false". As I said, I don't think they outright lie about things, but you can shade things pretty heavily by doing what I just described, and by deciding what to debunk and what to ignore. Where, for example, is his quote about causing energy costs to skyrocket? That wasn't worth confirming or debunking? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp There's a difference between claiming they won't cover things that have answers they don't like and claiming that they are wrong in what they cover. The former, sure. I can see that happening, even though it's going to be hard to actually prove. But whatever, we can assume that's true for now. It doesn't really invalidate anything they do cover. The latter, well, can you point out a specific rumor on that page which you feel should be rated differently and explain why? I didn't claim they were wrong, I said they spin things. I specifically said they don't outright lie. If you want an example of spin, I linked the page. Look at the "57 states" comment. That was flat true, but they took the most extreme rumor they could find so they could take up for him. Same with the Bill Ayers "rumor", same with snubbing the funeral of Maggie Thatcher. You don't have to be "wrong" to spin something, and I suspect you know that. I wonder if they'll address the "rumor" that they were more concerned with the funeral of Michael Brown than the former PM of our closest ally? You defending them is evidence enough of their slant. I'm willing to defend folks who present their facts and their sources, and who have a history of being right. Until evidence to the contrary is presented, I see no reason to distrust them. You've pointed out examples of what you're talking about, so that's good. Let's look through them. Fifty-Seven States Verdict: Mixture. TRUE: Barack Obama said he had visited 57 states. FALSE: Barack Obama's statement was a reference to 57 Islamic states. I don't see what's wrong here. It's not like "Did Obama say 57 states" was very disputed. He did. It was on camera and repeated everywhere. At the same time, there was also a rumor about some silly Islamic States connection. Which they debunked. Would you rather they have two separate pages to address each claim individually? Because if that's how it was done, I honestly would not reasonably expect the "57 states" issue to have a page at all, which would just be something else that folks would complain about. 
Bill Ayers They address the whole claim instead of simply saying "Yep, he knew Ayers". More accurate information is bad now? Thatcher Funeral "The Obama administration sent an official delegation to Hugo Chavez's funeral but "snubbed" the funeral of former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher. " Verdict: Mixed TRUE: The U.S. sent an official delegation to Hugo Chávez's funeral. FALSE: The U.S. sent no official delegation to Margaret Thatcher's funeral. TRUE: The U.S. delegation to Margaret Thatcher's funeral included no current Democratic officeholders or major cabinet members. It seems "snubbing" is a pretty subjective adjective. Cameron doesn't seem to think Obama snubbed the funeral, after all. Whether you agree or disagree is up to you. Reading that article, Snopes gives enough information for you to make that subjective call on your own, using objective information. So after those 3, not really seeing a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:35:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't read it in detail, but the way they spun what the Wookie said about comparing illegal aliens and TJ, GW and other founders was pretty obviously biased. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? I didn't read it in detail, but the way they spun what the Wookie said about comparing illegal aliens and TJ, GW and other founders was pretty obviously biased. Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:35:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Seems like they try to print the truth for now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:38:25 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:43:49 PM EDT
[#45]
They back up their claims with references. Looks to me 99% of the time they are spot on
I've only seen a few iffy or open to interpretation, and all of them were political, which isn't always a black and white answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:46:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
unreliable on political events, they lean heavily left. OK on other issues THIS. The amount to which they "looked the other way" regarding Obama and (potential, future) gun control was huge and obvious. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:48:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So after those 3, not really seeing a problem. What a surprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:49:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can somebody post an example of something political they got wrong? I didn't read it in detail, but the way they spun what the Wookie said about comparing illegal aliens and TJ, GW and other founders was pretty obviously biased. Are you talking about this one? Where's the bias in correcting a false claim about words stated on record and easily verified? If you don't think that page is full of spin and Obama apologetics, I don't know what to tell ya. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:54:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Arf is full of claptrap conspiracy nuts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2014 3:57:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Snopes is fine for "A boy got bitten by a snake in the McDonalds ball pit" stuff. For anything political, they'll shade it as much as possible to the left. I don't think they flat-out lie about stuff, but they spin pretty hard. Yep. Stuff like: Q: Did Obama say he wanted to shut down the coal industry?
FALSE! He never said that. (he just said that consumer costs would "necessarily skyrocket" under his energy policy, making it uneconomical to consumers and enacting a defacto ban) "That's not what I really said."
They do the same thing in reverse for Rs and libertarians. |
|
|
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.
