User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2012 7:04:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
[Meh. Probably just a troll. I would hope no one is that stupid.] First, thanks for such a nice welcome to the blog! Second, I was one of the people filmed in the company's video today (you might want to go check it out). Third, you guys need to loosen your sphincters a bit and be a little more open to new ideas! No troll here, just a gun enthusiast, collector, and open-minded AR-15 owner. I guess you have to post 1000 times before your opinion counts. Well, I really don't care. I shot it today and feel it creates a lot more excitement around shooting AR-15's. I again would strongly recommend you try it out before you provide such lame comments to new members of the blog. Pete Never said anything was wrong with it. Making a shill post won't help sway anybody. Think about it.... You create an account and your first post is talking about how awesome this product it. A product which you seem to be connected with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2012 7:55:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
This. Subtlety. You don't has it. Quoted:
Quoted:
I used it today and can safely say "I loved it!". It is lighter and more maneuverable than the traditional AR-15. Plus, I loved how quickly I could get on target. I am a BELIEVER!!!! RenegadePete Nope, no credibility gap from the first post of an account created today about the product.  I was supposed to be subtle? I guess I failed to create excitement enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2012 8:06:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Anyone actually see ths in person?
I still don't see where it's better than an sbr |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 1:47:22 AM EDT
[#4]
For those of us unable to own an SBR without relocating, I could (in theory) see the point of this product. However, given the price point, the possibility of SEVERE mouth injuries (not to mention the uncomfortableness of having something recoiling into your jaw!), and the fact that the ATF is probably going to rule this a no-no (remember, a rubber band is a "machine gun") without a stamp I can't really see this going anywhere.
Post up your letter from the ATF saying it's okay for weapons with barrels < 16" and OAL < 26" and no other stock, drop the price by about $150.00-200.00, and figure out a way to keep some idiot from knocking all his teeth out while using it and then suing you into the poor house, and maybe it'll go somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 3:04:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Instead of a nut cup, design it with a chin cup. Something that conforms to shape of the chin rather than just pressing on the chin with such a small area.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 3:56:39 AM EDT
[#6]
This thread has a little of everything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 6:41:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Could work. Needs to be a single arm that rotates and locks in the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions (although the 6 position might be problematic). Storing in it's current configuration doesn't seem very compact.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 7:59:00 AM EDT
[#8]
I applaud you for thinking outside the box.
There are several downsides to the NSN as mentioned above. … a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
the chin stock affects the "when held in one hand" aspect of the defintion of a handgun therfore making the AR15 pistol into an AOW. … any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, . . . . . .
The NSN chin rest makes the weapon something OTHER THAN a handgun as defined above because it is no longer designed to be "Held in one hand". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 8:07:33 AM EDT
[#9]
I will have to wait for the ATF ruling on this...the gun, after all, isn't being held IN YOUR FACE. Right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 10:13:17 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 10:31:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
If you call it a stock it's an SBR and taxable. If you call it a tooth extractor then it's not taxable. this! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 2:04:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Now your starting to see the light. Now try and find the word stock in the rifle or SBR definition. There obviously is none. The ATF infers that a shoulder stock = "shoulder fired". A chin stock does not equal shoulder fired. Use of one hand and a chin does not negate held and fired by a single hand any more than gripping it by the magwell does. A chin rest does not negate fired by a single hand any more than a bipod does. I have not heard of a bipod making an AOW. A foreward grip is for the use of a second hand which negates designed to be held and fired by a single hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 2:05:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
the chin stock affects the "when held in one hand" aspect of the defintion of a handgun therfore making the AR15 pistol into an AOW. The NSN chin rest makes the weapon something OTHER THAN a handgun as defined above because it is no longer designed to be "Held in one hand". Unless the chin grip is for a second hand, it does not make it OTHER THAN a handgun or an AOW any more than a bipod does (The ATFis obviously fine with bipods). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 2:22:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Now your starting to see the light. Now try and find the word stock in the rifle or SBR definition. There obviously is none. The ATF infers that a shoulder stock = "shoulder fired". A chin stock does not equal shoulder fired. Use of one hand and a chin does not negate held and fired by a single hand any more than gripping it by the magwell does. A chin rest does not negate fired by a single hand any more than a bipod does. I have not heard of a bipod making an AOW. A foreward grip is for the use of a second hand which negates designed to be held and fired by a single hand. Ok then explain the legality of using an angled fore grip on a AR pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 2:43:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now your starting to see the light. Now try and find the word stock in the rifle or SBR definition. There obviously is none. The ATF infers that a shoulder stock = "shoulder fired". A chin stock does not equal shoulder fired. Use of one hand and a chin does not negate held and fired by a single hand any more than gripping it by the magwell does. A chin rest does not negate fired by a single hand any more than a bipod does. I have not heard of a bipod making an AOW. A foreward grip is for the use of a second hand which negates designed to be held and fired by a single hand. Ok then explain the legality of using an angled fore grip on a AR pistol. It's not legal, the ATF just hasn't figured it out yet. Barrel shroud already has a legal definition from the AWB which would preclude them on pistols under the ATF's definition. That definition still exists in New York State law for assault weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2012 2:55:50 PM EDT
[#16]
I was sold on when I saw the first 2 vids, so this one just confirms it. I'm just waiting on the ruling, and then I'm in or at least 2. John |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 2:40:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Good luck on that one. Tha ATF is the Federal agency charged with administration of the firearm laws. Their rules and regulation carries the same weight as law in the same way the EPA regulations and other agency regulations are law. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now your starting to see the light. Now try and find the word stock in the rifle or SBR definition. There obviously is none. The ATF infers that a shoulder stock = "shoulder fired". A chin stock does not equal shoulder fired. Use of one hand and a chin does not negate held and fired by a single hand any more than gripping it by the magwell does. A chin rest does not negate fired by a single hand any more than a bipod does. I have not heard of a bipod making an AOW. A foreward grip is for the use of a second hand which negates designed to be held and fired by a single hand. Ok then explain the legality of using an angled fore grip on a AR pistol. It's not legal, the ATF just hasn't figured it out yet. Barrel shroud already has a legal definition from the AWB which would preclude them on pistols under the ATF's definition. That definition still exists in New York State law for assault weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud That is precisely why a VFG on a pistol is still illegal despite three Courts that have ruled otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 5:31:32 AM EDT
[#18]
You mean the Justice Department. The ATF rulings don't have the force of law as stated on their website.
ATF Rulings ATF publishes rulings to promote uniform application of the laws and regulations it administers. Rulings interpret the requirements of laws and regulations and apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Rulings do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, and rulings must be considered. Concerned parties are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same. http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/ It's hard to make a cogent argument about a barrel shroud not being a place to put your hand and a grip that is, when, the legal definition of barrel shroud is to keep your hand from burning when holding it. (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 6:01:50 AM EDT
[#19]
I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 6:39:28 AM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 6:58:21 AM EDT
[#21]
With a price point at $20-30 I would try it out.
Isn't any reason it should cost anymore. It's a very simple device, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 7:51:30 AM EDT
[#22]
HAHA... that's awesome. $250 for that thing? I definitely don't get the price. That's insane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 7:55:10 AM EDT
[#23]
TMJ
ALL I got to say |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 7:59:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
HAHA... that's awesome. $250 for that thing? I definitely don't get the price. That's insane. Yeah, needs a lot more engineering/machining/mechanism for that price. Of course, I think the Slide Fire stock price is a joke but that doesn't seem to be coming down. And while it may not impart a lot of force on any given shot, I think if you trained a lot with it and you were predisposed, you might get a negative effect on the TMJ. That joint is a finicky one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporomandibular_joint_disorder |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 9:22:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Of course there is less recoil than the shoulder method, there are a bunch of joints taking up some of the recoil, from the jaw to the neck on down the spine... If it is more intuitive to shoot an AR in the position this chin stock places the AR, JUST move the stock of a regular AR higher up vertically on your shoulder so just the bottom tip of the stock rests on your shoulder... I promise it will not just jump out while shooting, considering how much recoil and AR15 has. ...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 10:46:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
You mean the Justice Department. The ATF rulings don't have the force of law as stated on their website. ATF Rulings ATF publishes rulings to promote uniform application of the laws and regulations it administers. Rulings interpret the requirements of laws and regulations and apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Rulings do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, and rulings must be considered. Concerned parties are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same. http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/ It's hard to make a cogent argument about a barrel shroud not being a place to put your hand and a grip that is, when, the legal definition of barrel shroud is to keep your hand from burning when holding it. (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo I think you've confused ruling and regulation. Not at all the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 12:10:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Maybe you should called it the OGS
"Opti-Grab-Stock" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 12:26:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You mean the Justice Department. The ATF rulings don't have the force of law as stated on their website. ATF Rulings ATF publishes rulings to promote uniform application of the laws and regulations it administers. Rulings interpret the requirements of laws and regulations and apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Rulings do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, and rulings must be considered. Concerned parties are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same. http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/ It's hard to make a cogent argument about a barrel shroud not being a place to put your hand and a grip that is, when, the legal definition of barrel shroud is to keep your hand from burning when holding it. (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo I think you've confused ruling and regulation. Not at all the same thing. That's a cut and paste. I'm not sure how that's confusing. A member was asking an explanation of why an angled grip was legal. My response was it's not, just as a barrel shroud is not within the ATF ruling. He stated the ATF ruling has the force of law. I suggested it did not according to their website. I'm not sure the Justice Department has ever issued a regulation regarding barrel shrouds and forward grips on pistols. Those would have the force of law, once again, as the ATF suggests on their website. That does not mean the ATF won't arrest you. It does mean there is no legal precedent for that action (as they've lost every case that's been ruled upon). It appears the ATF does not enforce barrel shrouds. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 1:42:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You mean the Justice Department. The ATF rulings don't have the force of law as stated on their website. ATF Rulings ATF publishes rulings to promote uniform application of the laws and regulations it administers. Rulings interpret the requirements of laws and regulations and apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Rulings do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, and rulings must be considered. Concerned parties are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same. http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/ It's hard to make a cogent argument about a barrel shroud not being a place to put your hand and a grip that is, when, the legal definition of barrel shroud is to keep your hand from burning when holding it. (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo I think you've confused ruling and regulation. Not at all the same thing. That's a cut and paste. I'm not sure how that's confusing. A member was asking an explanation of why an angled grip was legal. My response was it's not, just as a barrel shroud is not within the ATF ruling. He stated the ATF ruling has the force of law. I suggested it did not according to their website. I'm not sure the Justice Department has ever issued a regulation regarding barrel shrouds and forward grips on pistols. Those would have the force of law, once again, as the ATF suggests on their website. That does not mean the ATF won't arrest you. It does mean there is no legal precedent for that action (as they've lost every case that's been ruled upon). It appears the ATF does not enforce barrel shrouds. http://img3.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/495/media/images/Bushmaster_Carbon_15_Type_97.jpg I did not state the ATF ruling have the force of law. I stated "their rules and regulation carries the same weight as law in the same way the EPA regulations and other agency regulations are law." You may think it's just semantics but that what law is, semantics. BATFE regulations, rulings, and opinions are law to the same extent that EPA and DOL regulations and rulings are law. Ultimate statutory interpretation rests with the courts, but executive agencies charged with the administration of the laws are given great deference in their rulings and opinions. Deference shown to administrative agency decisions is often referred to as Chevron deference, after the case bearing the same name. In short, "considerable weight should be accorded to executive department's construction of statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 2:17:07 PM EDT
[#30]
Ok, so why are barrel shrouds and angle grips legal? I think I missed that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 4:17:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Don't know. By the definition of a pistol a VFG should be legal too. 3 Courts have agreed that adding a VFG does not change the original design or intent.
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). So it goes back to the deference executive agencies charged with the administration of the laws are given in their rulings and opinions. And with that we've come full circle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2012 9:39:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Well, using that definition then any AR 15 style weapon wouldn't count as a Pistol as it was not "originally designed" and they could probably argue that in court. Depending on their lawyer, maybe even successfully.
Now, could they win that in court consistently? Nah, I don't think so. And would probably get overturned with regularity. It's probably why they don't bother with prosecuting it. It's a cost benefit analysis, and the costs outweigh the benefits to try every one of those cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2012 7:06:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: If you, as the builder, are building it as a pistol why isn't then originally designed as such? It's not the action that determines a firearm. If it was there would be no handguns at all. The first single shot firearm was a long gun, first semi auto was a rifle, the first revolving cylinder was also a rifle. Well, using that definition then any AR 15 style weapon wouldn't count as a Pistol as it was not "originally designed" and they could probably argue that in court. Depending on their lawyer, maybe even successfully. Now, could they win that in court consistently? Nah, I don't think so. And would probably get overturned with regularity. It's probably why they don't bother with prosecuting it. It's a cost benefit analysis, and the costs outweigh the benefits to try every one of those cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 11:45:08 AM EDT
[#34]
I don't find this device the least bit controversial. I have absolutely NO idea why you guys are arguing back & forth about this.
The NSN is just a controversial as a foam pad on the receiver extension. Just as controversial as a rubber cane foot on the end of a receiver extension. What's the big argument? Cheek, chin, forehead ... who gives a shit? The NSN is an option. Take it or leave it. I can't help but think, perhaps make a softer and less expensive version that covers & extends from the receiver extension. Kinda like a foam cover that is on most pistol receiver extensions, but with protrusions on each side which creates like a 'chin stop'. That would likely be a less expensive, optional, introductory model. If people like the concept that much then they could always purchase a more expensive version such as this. I've got another idea! How about you take 1 or even 3 of these units and designate them as demonstrator devices? Simply charge the customer for the item, let them use it for X amount of time and when/if they return it on time ... they get refunded. It's like charging them for a refundable deposit. I know ... that's small potatoes, but it would ease people's apprehensions of ordering one and not liking it. If you've got a 100% satisfaction guarantee for 30 days then that's even better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 4:55:00 PM EDT
[#35]
We are not arguing, we are discussing a topic in a discussion forum, no need for you to be here if you don't like the topic
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 5:05:19 PM EDT
[#36]
The video says it makes the firearm "more reliable". In what way?
C'mon man, it's an overpriced solution looking for a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 5:08:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I used it today and can safely say "I loved it!". It is lighter and more maneuverable than the traditional AR-15. Plus, I loved how quickly I could get on target. I am a BELIEVER!!!! RenegadePete This thread has potential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 6:32:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you, as the builder, are building it as a pistol why isn't then originally designed as such? It's not the action that determines a firearm. If it was there would be no handguns at all. The first single shot firearm was a long gun, first semi auto was a rifle, the first revolving cylinder was also a rifle.
Well, using that definition then any AR 15 style weapon wouldn't count as a Pistol as it was not "originally designed" and they could probably argue that in court. Depending on their lawyer, maybe even successfully. Now, could they win that in court consistently? Nah, I don't think so. And would probably get overturned with regularity. It's probably why they don't bother with prosecuting it. It's a cost benefit analysis, and the costs outweigh the benefits to try every one of those cases. Did you as the builder "originally design" the weapon, or did a guy named Stoner do it? It's all dependant on what you can successfully argue in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 6:39:49 PM EDT
[#39]
I am willing to do an unbiased review on it.
Send me one or two and I will get some solid guys to help me and send you back a video or post a few written reviews. Like I said before, if they were more affordable I would try it. Pm me, OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2012 6:39:53 PM EDT
[#40]
As Stoner originally designed it, it was in 7.62x51mm...
That Sullivan guy did the 5.56 version. Then a pistol... We're twice removed from original design, maybe three since the first Stoner AR-10 had a carbon fiber barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 6:21:36 PM EDT
[#41]
I have to hand it to this Marine for thinking outside the box. I think it's kinda sad that a lot of people go to the Gov. and say, "Can I pretty please put a shorter barrel on my rifle? Please, please can I? They look so much cooler! I'll tell you what, I'll even pay you $200 dollars if you let me...please!" My view since I know y'all care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 6:44:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I have to hand it to this Marine for thinking outside the box. I think it's kinda sad that a lot of people go to the Gov. and say, "Can I pretty please put a shorter barrel on my rifle? Please, please can I? They look so much cooler! I'll tell you what, I'll even pay you $200 dollars if you let me...please!" My view since I know y'all care. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 7:01:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I have to hand it to this Marine for thinking outside the box. I think it's kinda sad that a lot of people go to the Gov. and say, "Can I pretty please put a shorter barrel on my rifle? Please, please can I? They look so much cooler! I'll tell you what, I'll even pay you $200 dollars if you let me...please!" My view since I know y'all care. Has nothing to do with looking cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 7:20:07 PM EDT
[#44]
I understand there are benefits to sbrs. For people that need a compact, lightweight, maneuverable weapon they are just what the dr ordered. But I would be willing to bet most people with sbr stamps aren't clearing rooms. Again, my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 8:02:09 PM EDT
[#45]
I would disagree. Virtually everyone I know with a SBR has never cleared a room. Those of us who have appreciate the size and maneuverability of the SBR or the 'real thing'. SBSs are great as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 8:06:27 PM EDT
[#46]
I've cleared my empty house a few times just to test out some new parts
While convenient, an SBR isn't as necessary as a light, in my homebrewed opinion. Many of my bangnclear type friends would agree, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2012 8:26:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
I've cleared my empty house a few times just to test out some new parts .Haha totally understandable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 9:54:26 AM EDT
[#48]
Still haven't received a PM from the OP asking for my address.
You would think he would jump on it considering this is the largest market for his item. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 4:26:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I would disagree. Virtually everyone I know with a SBR has never cleared a room. Those of us who have appreciate the size and maneuverability of the SBR or the 'real thing'. SBSs are great as well. I agree with you. It would seem that most who clear rooms with SBRs do not need to form 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2012 8:38:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Wow! I wonder if this will work on my 458 Socom pistol
|
|
|
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.
