User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:12:09 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good analogy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would be like some CNBC reporter doing some stories on a hot new tech company and neglecting to mention they owned a bus load of stock. Good analogy. If I was in the station ownership group, I would have my lawyers look into suing her ass for using her job and access to company broadcast time and equipment to basically do unpaid commercials for her 420 shop. Whether they could recover any money  , IANAL but words like fiduciary duty circle my brain. While that may not be the correct term for what I am thinking, it is easily arguable that she used her job as a reporter to benefit her company without properly compensating the tv station that employed her.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:27:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But wine is ok right? NO! This is where it all starts...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:59:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too much Afrin to clear up your nose will give you a nasty case of the stuffy head too. BAN AFRIN!!!!! For the children's boogers!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Medical Marijuana" does not exist. It is made up bullshit by a bunch of people who want to get high. Wrong. I witnessed what it did for my dad when he was going through chemo. Lots of people abuse the hell out of it, but that does not make its medical properties invalid any more than morphine or valium. It does seem to help nausea. Unfortunately, long-term use can create a nasty cyclic vomiting syndrome. So too much of a good thing can actually recreate the problem it ostensibly solves. Too much Afrin to clear up your nose will give you a nasty case of the stuffy head too. BAN AFRIN!!!!! For the children's boogers!!! It's not even that really. The syndrome he's talking about is basically like a bad reaction that only effects a small % of users. The vast majority of cannabis users do not cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome. Sort of like how harmless peanuts can cause some people to DIE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 7:59:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Threads like this, where people go on about how bad weed is, or how bad everyone is that uses weed, makes me remember that the only thing I have in common with some posters here, is gun ownership and nothing else. I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 8:50:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not even that really. The syndrome he's talking about is basically like a bad reaction that only effects a small % of users. The vast majority of cannabis users do not cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome. Sort of like how harmless peanuts can cause some people to DIE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Medical Marijuana" does not exist. It is made up bullshit by a bunch of people who want to get high. Wrong. I witnessed what it did for my dad when he was going through chemo. Lots of people abuse the hell out of it, but that does not make its medical properties invalid any more than morphine or valium. It does seem to help nausea. Unfortunately, long-term use can create a nasty cyclic vomiting syndrome. So too much of a good thing can actually recreate the problem it ostensibly solves. Too much Afrin to clear up your nose will give you a nasty case of the stuffy head too. BAN AFRIN!!!!! For the children's boogers!!! It's not even that really. The syndrome he's talking about is basically like a bad reaction that only effects a small % of users. The vast majority of cannabis users do not cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome. Sort of like how harmless peanuts can cause some people to DIE. you are an idiot, when i was young i smoked a hell of a lot of weed for a long time and so did most of the people i knew. it's bad for you in so many ways especially when you are young |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:04:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Threads like this, where people go on about how bad weed is, or how bad everyone is that uses weed, makes me remember that the only thing I have in common with some posters here, is gun ownership and nothing else. I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:06:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:13:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Explain the Commerce clause and the rest of the bullshit regulation that is destroying the country before we get around to explaining how the .Gov is harshing the addicts dope mellow. You know the important stuff before recreational use of dope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:17:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not even that really. The syndrome he's talking about is basically like a bad reaction that only effects a small % of users. The vast majority of cannabis users do not cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome. Sort of like how harmless peanuts can cause some people to DIE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Medical Marijuana" does not exist. It is made up bullshit by a bunch of people who want to get high. Wrong. I witnessed what it did for my dad when he was going through chemo. Lots of people abuse the hell out of it, but that does not make its medical properties invalid any more than morphine or valium. It does seem to help nausea. Unfortunately, long-term use can create a nasty cyclic vomiting syndrome. So too much of a good thing can actually recreate the problem it ostensibly solves. Too much Afrin to clear up your nose will give you a nasty case of the stuffy head too. BAN AFRIN!!!!! For the children's boogers!!! It's not even that really. The syndrome he's talking about is basically like a bad reaction that only effects a small % of users. The vast majority of cannabis users do not cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome. Sort of like how harmless peanuts can cause some people to DIE. So what you are saying is that cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome is weed's nod to Mr. Darwin and is helping cull the weak from the herd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:17:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Your point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. Other "intoxicants". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:19:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are an idiot, when i was young i smoked a hell of a lot of weed for a long time and so did most of the people i knew. it's bad for you in so many ways especially when you are young Marijuana killed your ability to capitalize. Sad 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:20:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. You point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. The Libtardians want their drugs, but much like the Republican and Democratic BETTERS want Amnesty, they want it now. Social Welfare reform or Securing the border comes later...as in never. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:20:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Explain the Commerce clause and the rest of the bullshit regulation that is destroying the country before we get around to explaining how the .Gov is harshing the addicts dope mellow. You know the important stuff before recreational use of dope. But that's exactly what the drug war is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:24:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Libtardians want their drugs, but much like the Republican and Democratic BETTERS want Amnesty, they want it now. Social Welfare reform or Securing the border comes later...as in never. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. You point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. The Libtardians want their drugs, but much like the Republican and Democratic BETTERS want Amnesty, they want it now. Social Welfare reform or Securing the border comes later...as in never. Bullseye, perfect analogy. Weed is their stalking horse for the legalization all street drugs....err...."intoxicants". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:24:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. Other "intoxicants". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Your point is moot, but you win. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, krokodil, crystal meth, black tar, crack,..........etc. for everyone. So long as the drug abusers all accept full responsibility for the consequences of their choice to become addicts; which of course they can never be expected to do by any sane individual. Other "intoxicants". You forgot irresponsible procreators, bankers, major corporations and politicians in your list of folks who are responsible for themselves. I promise that if you smoke dope and leave me alone. I will leave you alone too unless I want to buy some of your dope. By the way, where is it in the constitution that our .gov is appointed our keeper instead of our servant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:24:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Threads like this, where people go on about how bad weed is, or how bad everyone is that uses weed, makes me remember that the only thing I have in common with some posters here, is gun ownership and nothing else. I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. Dissent is one thing, making laws to force others to conform to your uneducated opinion is the problem. I am sure you would make a law that everyone go to a southern baptist church on Sunday morning if you could. Your way or the highway, constitution and liberty be damned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:26:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Always smarter to say nothing. but FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! Drug laws are useless. The history of them shows that they are created and used to suppress minorities. excerpt: OH NO! A MINORITY IS GOING TO LURE AND FUCK OUR WOMEN USING THIS EVIL DRUG! rabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabble If you could make people believe that you could lure and fuck OUR WOMENZ using a <insert hobby here> your hobby would be illegal, too. While I tend to lean Libertarian...... I have to ask...... Are you high?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:28:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Explain the Commerce clause and the rest of the bullshit regulation that is destroying the country before we get around to explaining how the .Gov is harshing the addicts dope mellow. You know the important stuff before recreational use of dope. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Explain the Commerce clause and the rest of the bullshit regulation that is destroying the country before we get around to explaining how the .Gov is harshing the addicts dope mellow. You know the important stuff before recreational use of dope. It's the exact same thing. There is no picking and choosing, you either support unlimited federal power or you don't. If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Justice Clarence Thomas, Raich v Gonzalez |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:28:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Attention whore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:30:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I tend to lean Libertarian...... I have to ask...... Are you high?! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Always smarter to say nothing. but FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! Drug laws are useless. The history of them shows that they are created and used to suppress minorities. excerpt: OH NO! A MINORITY IS GOING TO LURE AND FUCK OUR WOMEN USING THIS EVIL DRUG! rabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabble If you could make people believe that you could lure and fuck OUR WOMENZ using a <insert hobby here> your hobby would be illegal, too. While I tend to lean Libertarian...... I have to ask...... Are you high?! He is paraphrasing a propaganda film called reefer madness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:31:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the exact same thing. There is no picking and choosing, you either support unlimited federal power or you don't. If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;']If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'] [div style='margin-left: 40px;']Justice Clarence Thomas, Raich v Gonzalez Go ahead and tell me that Clarence Thomas is a doper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I tell you what. You explain to me why prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment but prohibition of other intoxicants doesn't and we can start a real debate. Explain the Commerce clause and the rest of the bullshit regulation that is destroying the country before we get around to explaining how the .Gov is harshing the addicts dope mellow. You know the important stuff before recreational use of dope. It's the exact same thing. There is no picking and choosing, you either support unlimited federal power or you don't. If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'][div style='margin-left: 40px;']If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. [div style='margin-left: 40px;'] [div style='margin-left: 40px;']Justice Clarence Thomas, Raich v Gonzalez Go ahead and tell me that Clarence Thomas is a doper. This exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:31:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:.
The amount of Reefer Madness BS posted here is ridiculous. Were you referring to me? I've posted nothing of the sort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:32:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's the exact same thing. There is no picking and choosing, you either support unlimited federal power or you don't. If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. Many people in this thread are perfectly fine with tyrannical government as long as it is on their terms. "Liberty" and "freedom" are just buzzwords to them, to be used to achieve their ends. Limited government would mean they couldn't impose their will on others, so it's a no go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:36:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He is paraphrasing a propaganda film called reefer madness. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Always smarter to say nothing. but FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! Drug laws are useless. The history of them shows that they are created and used to suppress minorities. excerpt: OH NO! A MINORITY IS GOING TO LURE AND FUCK OUR WOMEN USING THIS EVIL DRUG! rabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabble If you could make people believe that you could lure and fuck OUR WOMENZ using a <insert hobby here> your hobby would be illegal, too. While I tend to lean Libertarian...... I have to ask...... Are you high?! He is paraphrasing a propaganda film called reefer madness. Oh.... I just thought he was making the most brain dead argument I ever heard...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:38:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dissent is one thing, making laws to force others to conform to your uneducated opinion is the problem. I am sure you would make a law that everyone go to a southern baptist church on Sunday morning if you could. Your way or the highway, constitution and liberty be damned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Threads like this, where people go on about how bad weed is, or how bad everyone is that uses weed, makes me remember that the only thing I have in common with some posters here, is gun ownership and nothing else. I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. Dissent is one thing, making laws to force others to conform to your uneducated opinion is the problem. I am sure you would make a law that everyone go to a southern baptist church on Sunday morning if you could. Your way or the highway, constitution and liberty be damned. I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:43:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh.... I just thought he was making the most brain dead argument I ever heard...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Always smarter to say nothing. but FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! Drug laws are useless. The history of them shows that they are created and used to suppress minorities. excerpt: OH NO! A MINORITY IS GOING TO LURE AND FUCK OUR WOMEN USING THIS EVIL DRUG! rabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabblerabble If you could make people believe that you could lure and fuck OUR WOMENZ using a <insert hobby here> your hobby would be illegal, too. While I tend to lean Libertarian...... I have to ask...... Are you high?! He is paraphrasing a propaganda film called reefer madness. Oh.... I just thought he was making the most brain dead argument I ever heard...... No. He was paraphrasing the most brain dead argument ever heard that was used to trick a bunch of the guys on this forum into supporting a nanny state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:44:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Were you referring to me? I've posted nothing of the sort. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:. The amount of Reefer Madness BS posted here is ridiculous. Were you referring to me? I've posted nothing of the sort. You told me that reefer once made you sleep with jazz musicians. OK maybe not.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:48:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(suck it) . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"And as for this job, well, not that I have a choice but, fuck it, I quit." The part I highlighted, underlined, italicized, and made bold, people do not say this when they are committing a voluntary act. Just keep fuckin that chicken. (suck it) . I don't quite see how you being sorta right about a few of your suppositions is a defense to making shit up out of whole cloth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:55:47 PM EDT
[#29]
7 pages and no mention of her nice DSLs? She does have some nice DSLs!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:55:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 9:56:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You told me that reefer once made you sleep with jazz musicians. OK maybe not.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:.
The amount of Reefer Madness BS posted here is ridiculous. Were you referring to me? I've posted nothing of the sort.
You told me that reefer once made you sleep with jazz musicians. OK maybe not.
Don't ever question my fanhood. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:07:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? You continue to live in California where the roster of state approved pistols is heading towards zero, a state with abysmally high taxation and draconian gun laws and yet, you're here on your high horse, preaching to me about what constitutes freedom. 
The california pot laws aren't too strong though; priorities I suppose. And what are you; that other guy's lawyer?
He doesn't need you, he can say stupid shit for himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:07:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the exact same thing. There is no picking and choosing, you either support unlimited federal power or you don't. If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. Many people in this thread are perfectly fine with tyrannical government as long as it is on their terms. "Liberty" and "freedom" are just buzzwords to them, to be used to achieve their ends. Limited government would mean they couldn't impose their will on others, so it's a no go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you support the federal war on drugs then you support the ability of congress to regulate EVERYTHING as interstate commerce. Everything that bolsters the feds ability to enforce prohibition is used in in myriad ways. Many people in this thread are perfectly fine with tyrannical government as long as it is on their terms. "Liberty" and "freedom" are just buzzwords to them, to be used to achieve their ends. Limited government would mean they couldn't impose their will on others, so it's a no go. Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:13:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing screams liberty like having to go to a Doctor to receive a permission slip to buy cough medicine or having your purchase of a decongestant registered to make sure you don't buy too much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:22:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You continue to live in California where the roster of state approved pistols is heading towards zero, a state with abysmally high taxation and draconian gun laws and yet, you're here on your high horse, preaching to me about what constitutes freedom.
The california pot laws aren't too strong though; priorities I suppose. And what are you; that other guy's lawyer?
He doesn't need you, he can say stupid shit for himself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? You continue to live in California where the roster of state approved pistols is heading towards zero, a state with abysmally high taxation and draconian gun laws and yet, you're here on your high horse, preaching to me about what constitutes freedom.
The california pot laws aren't too strong though; priorities I suppose. And what are you; that other guy's lawyer?
He doesn't need you, he can say stupid shit for himself. I stay in CA because it's home and I'm an idealist at heart. If I and others like me run away like bitches, there's absolutely no hope. If we stay, there's a bit better than no hope. We've got our faggotry, we're on our way to having our pot and we're even on our way to having better concealed carry laws. Give it some time and we might be the one's who come up with the right court case that gives even you more freedoms. What have you got? A persecution complex? Florida? I'm not lawyering for Wingnut. I'm just filling in for a bit so he can come up with more good stuff to say to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:23:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. So you support the Ruth Bader Ginsburg majority decision over the Clarence Thomas dissent in Raich v Gonzalez, and there are no meaningful limits to the power of congress. This was preceded by (and reinforces) Wickard versus Filburn, which the entire New Deal rests on. Congrats, you are an FDR progressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:25:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you support the Ruth Bader Ginsburg majority decision over the Clarence Thomas dissent in Raich v Gonzalez, and there are no meaningful limits to the power of congress. This was preceded by (and reinforces) Wickard versus Filburn, which the entire New Deal rests on. Congrats, you are an FDR progressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. So you support the Ruth Bader Ginsburg majority decision over the Clarence Thomas dissent in Raich v Gonzalez, and there are no meaningful limits to the power of congress. This was preceded by (and reinforces) Wickard versus Filburn, which the entire New Deal rests on. Congrats, you are an FDR progressive. I think you're giving him (and most others) entirely way too much credit toward actually thinking about and reconciling some sort of cohesive and consistent internal belief system about what government is or is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:30:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I stay in CA because it's home and I'm an idealist at heart. If I and others like me run away like bitches, there's absolutely no hope. If we stay, there's a bit better than no hope. We've got our faggotry, we're on our way to having our pot and we're even on our way to having better concealed carry laws. Give it some time and we might be the one's who come up with the right court case that gives even you more freedoms. What have you got? A persecution complex? Florida? I'm not lawyering for Wingnut. I'm just filling in for a bit so he can come up with more good stuff to say to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? You continue to live in California where the roster of state approved pistols is heading towards zero, a state with abysmally high taxation and draconian gun laws and yet, you're here on your high horse, preaching to me about what constitutes freedom.
The california pot laws aren't too strong though; priorities I suppose. And what are you; that other guy's lawyer?
He doesn't need you, he can say stupid shit for himself. I stay in CA because it's home and I'm an idealist at heart. If I and others like me run away like bitches, there's absolutely no hope. If we stay, there's a bit better than no hope. We've got our faggotry, we're on our way to having our pot and we're even on our way to having better concealed carry laws. Give it some time and we might be the one's who come up with the right court case that gives even you more freedoms. What have you got? A persecution complex? Florida? I'm not lawyering for Wingnut. I'm just filling in for a bit so he can come up with more good stuff to say to you. The guy you've been white nighting for is actually some 13er screen name SilverBearX. Enjoy you chains, you wear them well. But don't climb up on that high horse and browbeat others about what consituttes freedom because you willingly live on your knees. You'll soon have your pot though, enjoy the freedom it affords you and it might make your chains even more tolerable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:31:16 PM EDT
[#39]
White night?
Is that some kind of klan meeting holiday ceremony held at night or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:36:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: White night? Is that some kind of klan meeting holiday ceremony held at night or something? White night is when everyone gets together around a campfire and decides what consituttes freedom. Oh, also, pot needles make you stoopid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:38:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree. These threads are great for outing the large number of statists, theocrats, and proto-fascists that post here. Much like the Putin groupie threads. Gun owners are not as monolithic as some would believe. They also bring out libertarians who fling idiotic epithets at others because there is only "their way or the highway" and they don't tolerate any dissent and are unable to think beyond first order consequences. As well as a few people who become hysterical and cranky when they believe their supply is being threatened. Dissent is one thing, making laws to force others to conform to your uneducated opinion is the problem. I am sure you would make a law that everyone go to a southern baptist church on Sunday morning if you could. Your way or the highway, constitution and liberty be damned. I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. Nope. I completely support your right to say whatever you want. That does not mean I have to agree. I am actually not necesarily for the legalization of drugs. I am against the federal government making laws for it. If states make laws, them it becomes a more complex issue. Not sure where I fall on that one but I KNOW it is not Federal business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:42:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't quite see how you being sorta right about a few of your suppositions is a defense to making shit up out of whole cloth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't quite see how you being sorta right about a few of your suppositions is a defense to making shit up out of whole cloth. Let Me Quote Myself. Ehhh. I don't know whether you comprehended what she said, but I am pretty sure the station found out she owned the Weed Shop and she was about to fired because she failed to disclose it to the station management.
I don't know for certain, but I would also imagine that she was doing Pro Legalization stories while failing to disclose her conflict of interests/ I was right in that she had done stories about her organization before, that she never told her employer about her involvement in the organization, and that after she admitted that she owned the shop she was finished as a reporter. The only mistake I made was assuming her bosses had learned about her activities before she went on air to a do the report and I assumed she was facing a come to Jesus meeting with stations management after, apparently until she popped off they had no clue. However, I was correct about her activities and that she had no choice where her job was concerned, she was finished at that station whether she quit or not, cursed or not. The links I post confirm that she had done "at least one other story" about her organization and never bother to inform her bosses about her outside activities. The links also make it clear that her bosses are firm that she violated ethical and professional guide lines by doing the stories... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:43:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing screams liberty like having to go to a Doctor to receive a permission slip to buy cough medicine or having your purchase of a decongestant registered to make sure you don't buy too much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing screams liberty like having to go to a Doctor to receive a permission slip to buy cough medicine or having your purchase of a decongestant registered to make sure you don't buy too much. We are not talking about cough medicine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:44:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guy you've been white nighting for is actually some 13er screen name SilverBearX. Enjoy you chains, you wear them well. But don't climb up on that high horse and browbeat others about what consituttes freedom because you willingly live on your knees. You'll soon have your pot though, enjoy the freedom it affords you and it might make your chains even more tolerable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure that you have no clue as to my religious affiliation or even if I have one at all. Its my opinion that to advocate the mainstreaming of street drugs into society is a poor idea and that's what I'm stating here, my opinion; I'm not making any laws. Freedom of speech apparantly goes against your grain, unlike freedom to use drugs which is obviously more important to you. You are entitled to you opinion and I don't see anywhere where he tried to suppress your right to spout yours. He argued against your points and was more fun to read than you were. You are right that giving everyone free access to any drug they can afford is a bad idea. Sadly for those who want to control others, people generally want to be free to have their own bad ideas and make their own bad choices. Unfortunately for all of us, you included, people who think like you do have made and continue making laws against their idea of a bad idea. Guns, drugs, faggotry, tobacco, booze on Sunday, driving white women across state lines, teaching school kids Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn, you name it. Someone thought it was a bad idea so they made a law against it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Do you realize that that world will eventually take away your guns? You continue to live in California where the roster of state approved pistols is heading towards zero, a state with abysmally high taxation and draconian gun laws and yet, you're here on your high horse, preaching to me about what constitutes freedom.
The california pot laws aren't too strong though; priorities I suppose. And what are you; that other guy's lawyer?
He doesn't need you, he can say stupid shit for himself. I stay in CA because it's home and I'm an idealist at heart. If I and others like me run away like bitches, there's absolutely no hope. If we stay, there's a bit better than no hope. We've got our faggotry, we're on our way to having our pot and we're even on our way to having better concealed carry laws. Give it some time and we might be the one's who come up with the right court case that gives even you more freedoms. What have you got? A persecution complex? Florida? I'm not lawyering for Wingnut. I'm just filling in for a bit so he can come up with more good stuff to say to you. The guy you've been white nighting for is actually some 13er screen name SilverBearX. Enjoy you chains, you wear them well. But don't climb up on that high horse and browbeat others about what consituttes freedom because you willingly live on your knees. You'll soon have your pot though, enjoy the freedom it affords you and it might make your chains even more tolerable. I was away. 13er huh. That one really taxed the brain trust I'll bet. You debate like you are in 5th grade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:45:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you're giving him (and most others) entirely way too much credit toward actually thinking about and reconciling some sort of cohesive and consistent internal belief system about what government is or is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. So you support the Ruth Bader Ginsburg majority decision over the Clarence Thomas dissent in Raich v Gonzalez, and there are no meaningful limits to the power of congress. This was preceded by (and reinforces) Wickard versus Filburn, which the entire New Deal rests on. Congrats, you are an FDR progressive. I think you're giving him (and most others) entirely way too much credit toward actually thinking about and reconciling some sort of cohesive and consistent internal belief system about what government is or is not. So, what you two are saying is that if the laws were only at the state level you would be cool with that, or is that some unchecked power of the state governments ran amok.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:49:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, what you too are saying is that if the laws were only at the state level you would be cool with that, or is that some unchecked power of the state governments ran amok. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. So you support the Ruth Bader Ginsburg majority decision over the Clarence Thomas dissent in Raich v Gonzalez, and there are no meaningful limits to the power of congress. This was preceded by (and reinforces) Wickard versus Filburn, which the entire New Deal rests on. Congrats, you are an FDR progressive. I think you're giving him (and most others) entirely way too much credit toward actually thinking about and reconciling some sort of cohesive and consistent internal belief system about what government is or is not. So, what you too are saying is that if the laws were only at the state level you would be cool with that, or is that some unchecked power of the state governments ran amok. Sorry, but I don't try to solve those equations anymore. "So what you're saying" followed by X where X = something that wasn't even slightly implied. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:51:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We are not talking about cough medicine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing screams liberty like having to go to a Doctor to receive a permission slip to buy cough medicine or having your purchase of a decongestant registered to make sure you don't buy too much. We are not talking about cough medicine. Of course we are. The war on drugs is as wide reaching as it is retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:55:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let Me Quote Myself. I was right in that she had done stories about her organization before, that she never told her employer about her involvement in the organization, and that after she admitted that she owned the shop she was finished as a reporter. The only mistake I made was assuming her bosses had learned about her activities before she went on air to a do the report and I assumed she was facing a come to Jesus meeting with stations management after, apparently until she popped off they had no clue. However, I was correct about her activities and that she had no choice where her job was concerned, she was finished at that station whether she quit or not, cursed or not. The links I post confirm that she had done "at least one other story" about her organization and never bother to inform her bosses about her outside activities. The links also make it clear that her bosses are firm that she violated ethical and professional guide lines by doing the stories... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't quite see how you being sorta right about a few of your suppositions is a defense to making shit up out of whole cloth. Let Me Quote Myself. Ehhh. I don't know whether you comprehended what she said, but I am pretty sure the station found out she owned the Weed Shop and she was about to fired because she failed to disclose it to the station management.
I don't know for certain, but I would also imagine that she was doing Pro Legalization stories while failing to disclose her conflict of interests/ I was right in that she had done stories about her organization before, that she never told her employer about her involvement in the organization, and that after she admitted that she owned the shop she was finished as a reporter. The only mistake I made was assuming her bosses had learned about her activities before she went on air to a do the report and I assumed she was facing a come to Jesus meeting with stations management after, apparently until she popped off they had no clue. However, I was correct about her activities and that she had no choice where her job was concerned, she was finished at that station whether she quit or not, cursed or not. The links I post confirm that she had done "at least one other story" about her organization and never bother to inform her bosses about her outside activities. The links also make it clear that her bosses are firm that she violated ethical and professional guide lines by doing the stories... As I said, how is it a defense to simply making up shit out of whole cloth? You happened to be right. You had absolutely no idea you were going to be right. Had you been wrong you wouldn't have come back and apologized for making shit up. In the future, just stick with the things that you can prove. When you start down the road of "I'll bet she" and "it wouldn't surprise me if" you simply sound ignorant. That said, after reading a bunch more of your posts since I originally pointed out that you were just guessing at all the details, I've decided you're going to sound ignorant no matter what I say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:56:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course we are. The war on drugs is as wide reaching as it is retarded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Liberty and Freedom as spoken by the people who think they drugs laws are oppressive are just buzzwords to cover for the same old feels good do it bullshit from the 1960s and 1970s. Nothing screams liberty like having to go to a Doctor to receive a permission slip to buy cough medicine or having your purchase of a decongestant registered to make sure you don't buy too much. We are not talking about cough medicine. Of course we are. The war on drugs is as wide reaching as it is retarded. Yup. Just passed in TN. As stupid as it is, at least It's at the state level and it won't take much to overturn it if we So choose to put our effort in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 10:59:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I said, how is it a defense to simply making up shit out of whole cloth? You happened to be right. You had absolutely no idea you were going to be right. Had you been wrong you wouldn't have come back and apologized for making shit up. In the future, just stick with the things that you can prove. When you start down the road of "I'll bet she" and "it wouldn't surprise me if" you simply sound ignorant. That said, after reading a bunch more of your posts since I originally pointed out that you were just guessing at all the details, I've decided you're going to sound ignorant no matter what I say. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't quite see how you being sorta right about a few of your suppositions is a defense to making shit up out of whole cloth. Let Me Quote Myself. Ehhh. I don't know whether you comprehended what she said, but I am pretty sure the station found out she owned the Weed Shop and she was about to fired because she failed to disclose it to the station management.
I don't know for certain, but I would also imagine that she was doing Pro Legalization stories while failing to disclose her conflict of interests/ I was right in that she had done stories about her organization before, that she never told her employer about her involvement in the organization, and that after she admitted that she owned the shop she was finished as a reporter. The only mistake I made was assuming her bosses had learned about her activities before she went on air to a do the report and I assumed she was facing a come to Jesus meeting with stations management after, apparently until she popped off they had no clue. However, I was correct about her activities and that she had no choice where her job was concerned, she was finished at that station whether she quit or not, cursed or not. The links I post confirm that she had done "at least one other story" about her organization and never bother to inform her bosses about her outside activities. The links also make it clear that her bosses are firm that she violated ethical and professional guide lines by doing the stories... As I said, how is it a defense to simply making up shit out of whole cloth? You happened to be right. You had absolutely no idea you were going to be right. Had you been wrong you wouldn't have come back and apologized for making shit up. In the future, just stick with the things that you can prove. When you start down the road of "I'll bet she" and "it wouldn't surprise me if" you simply sound ignorant. That said, after reading a bunch more of your posts since I originally pointed out that you were just guessing at all the details, I've decided you're going to sound ignorant no matter what I say. What the hell are you guys talking about?
|
|
|
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.
