User Panel
|
I'm am morally against abortion. Unless for the health of mother, a severely deformed child, rape, or incest.
The women getting abortions are not, generally, the type of people that should be raising children. The fact that they want to go to a dirty, ill equipped facility and have a marginally qualified doctor work on them, only re-enforces that belief. The world is better off without them! |
|
So, make abortion easier but gun ownership harder.
The right of abortion is where in the Constitution? A tiny amount of research can reveal where gun ownership is a recognized right. |
|
I'm just glad we can finally get back to good ole G D threads....
|
|
Quoted:
Quite a number of pro-abortion legislators in the states that passed these laws voted FOR them, folks. Some were even co-sponsored by pro-abortion legislators. Because even most of the pro-abortion side was horrified by the total lack of standards that allowed Gosnell to operate. View Quote Lack of standards? More like complete lack of enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell Anyone with a brain would have turned around at first smell when approaching this place. Of course it was the DEA who pushed to finally snatch him up. |
|
Quoted:
I'm am morally against abortion. Unless for the health of mother, a severely deformed child, rape, or incest. The women getting abortions are not, generally, the type of people that should be raising children. The fact that they want to go to a dirty, ill equipped facility and have a marginally qualified doctor work on them, only re-enforces that belief. The world is better off without them! View Quote Well you know what we do, we make passive, reversible birth control a condition of being on welfare. But guess what, the left will scream about how racist that is and call it eugenics...but hey abortions are a good thing and should be protected. |
|
So let me see if I have this correct....
The NY SAFE act is constitutional because of states rights...even though its completely unconstitutional Hmmmm....but Texas does not have the same rule applied to it.... Do I have this right? Just want to be sure. The Tree of Liberty is blighted. |
|
I love how you're determined to save the "children" of people you want to see die starving in a ditch.
|
|
Quoted:
After Gosnell was ignored by the media and the majority of the public I had no doubt about this ruling. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
so we don't actually care whether abortions are safe or not. I hope texas ignores the ruling. that's what Obama does. After Gosnell was ignored by the media and the majority of the public I had no doubt about this ruling. Yup. It's truly incredible to see the fanaticism of liberals over abortion--they quite literally don't care if women are butchered during the procedure. It's amazing. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
so we don't actually care whether abortions are safe or not. I hope texas ignores the ruling. that's what Obama does. Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. Research "Gosnell" and you will see what a lack of regulation leads to in this field. It's a surgical procedure--and the ONLY one with no surgical standards being applied. It's insanity. |
|
"Liberals - Brave enough to kill our unborn children, just not brave enough to kill our enemies."
|
|
|
Quoted:
<a href="http://s49.photobucket.com/user/clinck/media/Internet/Roberts%20Senile_zpshxokodyd.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f297/clinck/Internet/Roberts%20Senile_zpshxokodyd.jpg</a> View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So let me see if I have this correct.... The NY SAFE act is constitutional because of states rights...even though its completely unconstitutional Hmmmm....but Texas does not have the same rule applied to it.... Do I have this right? Just want to be sure. The Tree of Liberty is blighted. <a href="http://s49.photobucket.com/user/clinck/media/Internet/Roberts%20Senile_zpshxokodyd.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f297/clinck/Internet/Roberts%20Senile_zpshxokodyd.jpg</a> That's also why Thomas' dissent is so spot on. The court, mostly on the left side, has a goal and writes a decision to fit that, not the law. |
|
Quoted:
"Conservatives - If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're fucked." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Liberals - Brave enough to kill our unborn children, just not brave enough to kill our enemies." "Conservatives - If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're fucked." "Fucked" by who? Your trite platitude makes no sense. Are you saying conservatives are not happy paying for other people's kids? Why should we? Can you come up with just ONE reason why other people's kids should be my responsibility? I'll wait . . . |
|
Quoted:
From Thomas' dissent, and why you'll never see such a spirited defense of the 2A from SCOTUS View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
From Thomas' dissent, and why you'll never see such a spirited defense of the 2A from SCOTUS If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result. This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test. All the State apparently needs to show to survive strict scrutiny is a list of aspirational educational goals (such as the “cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”) and a “reasoned, principled explanation” for why it is pursuing them—then this Court defers. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, ante, at 7, 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp.3d 673, 684 (WD Tex. 2014) (noting conflict in expert testimony about abortion safety). Likewise, it is now easier for the government to restrict judicial candidates’ campaign speech than for the Government to define marriage—even though the former is subject to strict scrutiny and the latter was supposedly subject to some form of rational-basis review. Compare Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 8–9), with United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 20).
These more recent decisions reflect the Court’s tendency to relax purportedly higher standards of review for lesspreferred rights. E.g., Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 421 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (“The Court makes no effort to justify its deviation from the tests we traditionally employ in free speech cases” to review caps on political contributions). Meanwhile, the Court selectively applies rational-basis review— under which the question is supposed to be whether “any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify” the law, McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426 (1961)— with formidable toughness. E.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 580 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (at least in equal protection cases, the Court is “most likely” to find no rational basis for a law if “the challenged legislation inhibits personal relationships”); see id., at 586 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (faulting the Court for applying “an unheard-of form of rational-basis review”). These labels now mean little. Whatever the Court claims to be doing, in practice it is treating its “doctrine referring to tiers of scrutiny as guidelines informing our approach to the case at hand, not tests to be mechanically applied.” Williams-Yulee, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 1) (BREYER, J., concurring). The Court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case. That bears repeating, and not just in this case. The courts are political bodies, just as much as the legislature. The only difference is that they don't have to worry about being voted out. |
|
Can anyone tell me why we need abortion past 8 or 10 weeks (as a standard, exceptions always exist) for any case? Any case at all?
Rape? Catch it before 10 weeks. Incest? Catch it before 10 weeks. Medical necessity? A much smaller need than most will admit, but a valid one. I can see an exception there. I am against it in every shape and form. It simply shows the moral depravity of our country when it is easier to kill someone than it is to take responsibility for your actions. Or force someone else to take responsibility for theirs. Want to keep abortion around to keep welfare low? Cool, I guess we should execute the homeless and single mothers on WIC too. Gotta save that money, right? Who cares who dies. |
|
Quoted:
Good. View Quote A win for science and intelligence, yes. |
|
Quoted:
"Conservatives - If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're fucked." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Liberals - Brave enough to kill our unborn children, just not brave enough to kill our enemies." "Conservatives - If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're fucked." I've yet to hear of any Conservatives advocating the killing of preschoolers. Sounds like the stupid crap that Sanders voters come up with. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
so we don't actually care whether abortions are safe or not. I hope texas ignores the ruling. that's what Obama does. Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. You say that like it's a problem. |
|
Quoted:
Research "Gosnell" and you will see what a lack of regulation leads to in this field. It's a surgical procedure--and the ONLY one with no surgical standards being applied. It's insanity. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so we don't actually care whether abortions are safe or not. I hope texas ignores the ruling. that's what Obama does. Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. Research "Gosnell" and you will see what a lack of regulation leads to in this field. It's a surgical procedure--and the ONLY one with no surgical standards being applied. It's insanity. Pro Choice also means if you want to go to the clinic that has the big ass coat-hanger out front run by "Dr. Nick" then it's their choice to make. Why should I care? The one and only thing I care about is not having to pay to raise someone's else's kid so they can continue the cycle of welfare, spawning more, and the associated crimes and incarceration....Rinse and repeat. If mom dies or is made incapable of bearing children in the aftermath of the process that's called "The Deal of the Day" as far as I am concerned. |
|
Quoted:
56 million abortions since Roe v Wade figure roughly 28 million female pre-born babies brutally killed.... View Quote That 56 million would have made another 100 million kids, IF they stop at kid #4 and only have 1 sexual paterner(which never possible). And those 100 million would have already reached breeding age, that's another 200 million people. All of them 350 million have to eat and shit everyday. How many Einstein's you are gonna get out of them. You think the welfare is bad now. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know about the case, I'm just here to say FUCK SCOTUS. When a few lawyers feel one way the constitution has an different meaning? We need serious judicial reforms and we need them now. View Quote You're right; a few Harvard lawyers striking down perfectly good laws because of a 200+ year old scrap of paper is no way to run a country. The sooner we dump this lame excuse for a Constitutional Republic and adopt a theocratic dictatorship, the better off everyone will be. |
|
Quoted:
You're right; a few Harvard lawyers striking down perfectly good laws because of a 200+ year old scrap of paper is no way to run a country. The sooner we dump this lame excuse for a Constitutional Republic and adopt a theocratic dictatorship, the better off everyone will be. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know about the case, I'm just here to say FUCK SCOTUS. When a few lawyers feel one way the constitution has an different meaning? We need serious judicial reforms and we need them now. You're right; a few Harvard lawyers striking down perfectly good laws because of a 200+ year old scrap of paper is no way to run a country. The sooner we dump this lame excuse for a Constitutional Republic and adopt a theocratic dictatorship, the better off everyone will be. You know what the 200 year old scrap of paper says about abortion? Not a single word. |
|
Quoted:
If mom dies or is made incapable of bearing children in the aftermath of the process that's called "The Deal of the Day" as far as I am concerned. View Quote Serious question then - what's to prevent some butcher from setting up shop and performing abortions in a manner that pretty much guarantees the woman will never be able to conceive or carry a child to term again? |
|
Quoted:
"Fucked" by who? Your trite platitude makes no sense. Are you saying conservatives are not happy paying for other people's kids? Why should we? Can you come up with just ONE reason why other people's kids should be my responsibility? I'll wait . . . View Quote You're attempting to tell someone who may not be able to afford a child that they must have it. Even if you put it up for adoption, are all you magnanimous conservatives going to pay for proper medical treatment during the pregnancy? |
|
Quoted:
You think that this ruling can be applied elsewhere...to support gun rights? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
so we don't actually care whether abortions are safe or not. I hope texas ignores the ruling. that's what Obama does. Bullshit. I am not really a supporter of abortion but that law and similar laws are stealth attempts to end the practice. It isn't about "safety". It is attempt to end it through regulation. Yes. It's a shame people here can't recognize this tactic since it's the favorite democrat method of gun control. I don't see how people aren't picking up on it either. This is the exact same tactic they're trying to employ on us with gun control. This is a useful ruling that should be applied elsewhere. You think that this ruling can be applied elsewhere...to support gun rights? No.... what? The tactic employed in Texas is the same as used by the liberals when they don't like something. "Sure, it's legal. But we regulated all the businesses you need to do it out of existence so it might be a little hard to ACTUALLY do this legal thing". Of course they wont apply this ruling to what they like regulating. Just like we won't support enacting 'safety' regulations on dealers and ranges that effectively shut their doors. |
|
Quoted:
No.... what? The tactic employed in Texas is the same as used by the liberals when they don't like something. "Sure, it's legal. But we regulated all the businesses you need to do it out of existence so it might be a little hard to ACTUALLY do this legal thing". Of course they wont apply this ruling to what they like regulating. Just like we won't support enacting 'safety' regulations on dealers and ranges that effectively shut their doors. View Quote Except gun dealers and manufacturers already have to comply with local and state regulations that cover similar businesses. |
|
Quoted: From Thomas' dissent, and why you'll never see such a spirited defense of the 2A from SCOTUS View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: From Thomas' dissent, and why you'll never see such a spirited defense of the 2A from SCOTUS If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result. This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test. All the State apparently needs to show to survive strict scrutiny is a list of aspirational educational goals (such as the "cultivat[ion of] a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry”) and a "reasoned, principled explanation” for why it is pursuing them—then this Court defers. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, ante, at 7, 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp.3d 673, 684 (WD Tex. 2014) (noting conflict in expert testimony about abortion safety). Likewise, it is now easier for the government to restrict judicial candidates’ campaign speech than for the Government to define marriage—even though the former is subject to strict scrutiny and the latter was supposedly subject to some form of rational-basis review. Compare Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 8–9), with United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 20). These more recent decisions reflect the Court’s tendency to relax purportedly higher standards of review for lesspreferred rights. E.g., Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 421 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) ("The Court makes no effort to justify its deviation from the tests we traditionally employ in free speech cases” to review caps on political contributions). Meanwhile, the Court selectively applies rational-basis review— under which the question is supposed to be whether "any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify” the law, McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 426 (1961)— with formidable toughness. E.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 580 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (at least in equal protection cases, the Court is "most likely” to find no rational basis for a law if "the challenged legislation inhibits personal relationships”); see id., at 586 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (faulting the Court for applying "an unheard-of form of rational-basis review”). These labels now mean little. Whatever the Court claims to be doing, in practice it is treating its "doctrine referring to tiers of scrutiny as guidelines informing our approach to the case at hand, not tests to be mechanically applied.” Williams-Yulee, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 1) (BREYER, J., concurring). The Court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case. I wonder when Thomas will be murdered suffer a life ending medical issue. Can't have the Uncle Tom point out the Imperial .gov's wearing no clothes. I weep for the state of our government. |
|
Murder on demand. View Quote The abortion issue is not amenable to simplistic solutions and facile slogans. The vast majority of people in this country are highly conflicted about abortion. They don't like it in principle, but they can see situations in which it might be necessary. To call it "murder" is to exclude any justification. If you take that position, you will find yourself in a very lonely place. |
|
Quoted:
Serious question then - what's to prevent some butcher from setting up shop and performing abortions in a manner that pretty much guarantees the woman will never be able to conceive or carry a child to term again? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If mom dies or is made incapable of bearing children in the aftermath of the process that's called "The Deal of the Day" as far as I am concerned. Serious question then - what's to prevent some butcher from setting up shop and performing abortions in a manner that pretty much guarantees the woman will never be able to conceive or carry a child to term again? Can't say other than I'd suspect there would be a civil suit. Truth be told I'd not care one way or the other. |
|
Some people here are fine with these disingenuous end-run regulations when it matches their political goals (anti-abortion), but we sure don't like it when the libs try end runs around 2A.
|
|
Quoted:
You're attempting to tell someone who may not be able to afford a child that they must have it. Even if you put it up for adoption, are all you magnanimous conservatives going to pay for proper medical treatment during the pregnancy? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Fucked" by who? Your trite platitude makes no sense. Are you saying conservatives are not happy paying for other people's kids? Why should we? Can you come up with just ONE reason why other people's kids should be my responsibility? I'll wait . . . You're attempting to tell someone who may not be able to afford a child that they must have it. Even if you put it up for adoption, are all you magnanimous conservatives going to pay for proper medical treatment during the pregnancy? Not if I didn't fuck her. Funny how that works! YOU pay for it. |
|
|
They managed to step in and remove restrictions on a made up right to abortion, but refused to step in and remove restrictions on gun rights which is spelled out in the bill of rights.
Tell me how the world's not out of control. |
|
Quoted: That 56 million would have made another 100 million kids, IF they stop at kid #4 and only have 1 sexual paterner(which never possible). And those 100 million would have already reached breeding age, that's another 200 million people. All of them 350 million have to eat and shit everyday. How many Einstein's you are gonna get out of them. You think the welfare is bad now. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 56 million abortions since Roe v Wade figure roughly 28 million female pre-born babies brutally killed.... That 56 million would have made another 100 million kids, IF they stop at kid #4 and only have 1 sexual paterner(which never possible). And those 100 million would have already reached breeding age, that's another 200 million people. All of them 350 million have to eat and shit everyday. How many Einstein's you are gonna get out of them. You think the welfare is bad now. The problem is not reproduction, it is rewarding them for bad behavior. Stop welfare and the problem fixes itself. Using abortion to lessen welfare rolls is analogous to putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. |
|
Quoted: The abortion issue is not amenable to simplistic solutions and facile slogans. The vast majority of people in this country are highly conflicted about abortion. They don't like it in principle, but they can see situations in which it might be necessary. To call it "murder" is to exclude any justification. If you take that position, you will find yourself in a very lonely place. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Murder on demand. The abortion issue is not amenable to simplistic solutions and facile slogans. The vast majority of people in this country are highly conflicted about abortion. They don't like it in principle, but they can see situations in which it might be necessary. To call it "murder" is to exclude any justification. If you take that position, you will find yourself in a very lonely place. Fine, let's go with homicide. There are times that it's justifiable, let's just not pretend that it's like having a mole removed at the dermatologists office. |
|
Quoted:
These labels now mean little. Whatever the Court claims to be doing, in practice it is treating its “doctrine referring to tiers of scrutiny as guidelines informing our approach to the case at hand, not tests to be mechanically applied.” Williams-Yulee, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 1) (BREYER, J., concurring). The Court should abandon the pretense that anything other than policy preferences underlies its balancing of constitutional rights and interests in any given case. View Quote I wonder how disillusioned he must be after all these years watching these 5-4 rulings grind out where only 2 or 3 justices actually give a good god damned what the law really says? His speeches and rulings show a hint of distain for it all these days and I can't blame him one bit. |
|
|
Quoted:
Not if I didn't fuck her. Funny how that works! YOU pay for it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Fucked" by who? Your trite platitude makes no sense. Are you saying conservatives are not happy paying for other people's kids? Why should we? Can you come up with just ONE reason why other people's kids should be my responsibility? I'll wait . . . You're attempting to tell someone who may not be able to afford a child that they must have it. Even if you put it up for adoption, are all you magnanimous conservatives going to pay for proper medical treatment during the pregnancy? Not if I didn't fuck her. Funny how that works! YOU pay for it. Yeah and peeps are just falling all over themselves to adopt children of the demographic that tend to get the majority of abortions. Hell they will go overseas first and find them a Hispanic, Chi-Com, or Russian kid. In one breath you say you don't like abortion and in the other you claim you don't want to pay for welfare kids. WTF....Is that some kind of retarded "Duality of Man" thing? |
|
Quoted:
They managed to step in and remove restrictions on a made up right to abortion, but refused to step in and remove restrictions on gun rights which is spelled out in the bill of rights. Tell me how the world's not out of control. View Quote It is, the question is.... what is going to be done about it? |
|
Quoted:
Can't say other than I'd suspect there would be a civil suit. Truth be told I'd not care one way or the other. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If mom dies or is made incapable of bearing children in the aftermath of the process that's called "The Deal of the Day" as far as I am concerned. Serious question then - what's to prevent some butcher from setting up shop and performing abortions in a manner that pretty much guarantees the woman will never be able to conceive or carry a child to term again? Can't say other than I'd suspect there would be a civil suit. Truth be told I'd not care one way or the other. Except sterility is a known potential side-effect and the woman signs off on that when filling out the disclosure paperwork. There may also be SOL issues, what if she doesn't try to get pregnant for a few years after the abortion? Not all women who get abortions use them as a casual method of birth control. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
It is, the question is.... what is going to be done about it? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
They managed to step in and remove restrictions on a made up right to abortion, but refused to step in and remove restrictions on gun rights which is spelled out in the bill of rights. Tell me how the world's not out of control. It is, the question is.... what is going to be done about it? Texit. |
|
Quoted: Yeah and peeps are just falling all over themselves to adopt children of the demographic that tend to get the majority of abortions. Hell they will go overseas first and find them a Hispanic, Chi-Com, or Russian kid. In one breath you say you don't like abortion and in the other you claim you don't want to pay for welfare kids. WTF....Is that some kind of retarded "Duality of Man" thing? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Fucked" by who? Your trite platitude makes no sense. Are you saying conservatives are not happy paying for other people's kids? Why should we? Can you come up with just ONE reason why other people's kids should be my responsibility? I'll wait . . . You're attempting to tell someone who may not be able to afford a child that they must have it. Even if you put it up for adoption, are all you magnanimous conservatives going to pay for proper medical treatment during the pregnancy? Not if I didn't fuck her. Funny how that works! YOU pay for it. Yeah and peeps are just falling all over themselves to adopt children of the demographic that tend to get the majority of abortions. Hell they will go overseas first and find them a Hispanic, Chi-Com, or Russian kid. In one breath you say you don't like abortion and in the other you claim you don't want to pay for welfare kids. WTF....Is that some kind of retarded "Duality of Man" thing? We could just abort the parents once, then we wont have to deal with the multiple abortions they would have. |
|
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.