User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:43:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is Arfcom: "Get both" If someone was unmasking USPs for political reasons (or any non-official reasons) - I want that investigated and people punished. If certain USPs are constantly popping up in SIGINT because of weird communications with our geo-political adversaries - I want that investigated, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is right. If someone was unmasking USPs for political reasons (or any non-official reasons) - I want that investigated and people punished. If certain USPs are constantly popping up in SIGINT because of weird communications with our geo-political adversaries - I want that investigated, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:44:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is Arfcom: "Get both" If someone was unmasking USPs for political reasons (or any non-official reasons) - I want that investigated and people punished. If certain USPs are constantly popping up in SIGINT because of weird communications with our geo-political adversaries - I want that investigated, too. I am not confident either will be done honestly.........too much slime in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:52:01 AM EDT
[#3]
Going to be real interesting as it unfolds.Its hard for Trump to move forward with his legislative agenda with all of this Russia inquiry taking the forefront Hard to accomplish anything meaningful..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:53:12 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to be real interesting as it unfolds.Its hard for Trump to move forward with his legislative agenda with all of this Russia inquiry taking the forefront Hard to accomplish anything meaningful.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 9:58:21 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to be real interesting as it unfolds.Its hard for Trump to move forward with his legislative agenda with all of this Russia inquiry taking the forefront Hard to accomplish anything meaningful.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:00:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh shit, at BEST it will be some low level guy like Scooter Libby who gets nailed.........we'll probably NEVER REMOTELY get the powerful charged with ANYTHING on either side even if the evidence PLAINLY indicates they should swing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:01:13 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sure hope you are wrong-for the sake of our country and democracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:04:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me also..........but do you think I am? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:05:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If history is a precedent-you are right. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:06:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh shit, at BEST it will be some low level guy like Scooter Libby who gets nailed.........we'll probably NEVER REMOTELY get the powerful charged with ANYTHING on either side even if the evidence PLAINLY indicates they should swing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:12:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Congress just subpoenaed info on two Rooks (Brennan, Rice) and a Pawn (Powers). Message sent. Powers better not make any long-term plans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:14:56 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's fucked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Congress just subpoenaed info on two Rooks (Brennan, Rice) and a Pawn (Powers). Message sent. Powers better not make any long-term plans.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:15:46 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Power is a she. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:17:02 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Power is a she. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress just subpoenaed info on two Rooks (Brennan, Rice) and a Pawn (Powers). Message sent. Powers better not make any long-term plans. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:17:50 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dunno...maybe under the right lighting... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Congress just subpoenaed info on two Rooks (Brennan, Rice) and a Pawn (Powers). Message sent. Powers better not make any long-term plans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:21:30 AM EDT
[#16]
So when does Comey testilie about Trump asking him to stop the investigation into Flynn? Can't wait for that shit show. I want him to open his mouth and insert his foot into it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:28:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So when does Comey testilie about Trump asking him to stop the investigation into Flynn? Can't wait for that shit show. I want him to open his mouth and insert his foot into it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:42:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but consider the basis for the "unmasking." The ostensible basis is potential violations of the Logan Act, a bill passed in 1799. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 10:59:05 AM EDT
[#19]
If Powers made a request, her excuse will be THIS:
She will point to a transcript of a conversation between two Foreign Targets. THEY will be speaking about interactions that impact foreign policy with a MASKED American. "Ivan, my meeting with ______ was most productive, and if what _____ tells us it true, it will help us in the future regarding Policy X before the UN Security Council..." She will then attempt to justify the unmasking, be explaining that it was needed to fully understand the context of the conversation and the impact on foreign policy. That's my prediction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:02:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Powers made a request, her excuse will be THIS: She will point to a transcript of a conversation between two Foreign Targets. THEY will be speaking about interactions that impact foreign policy with a MASKED American. She will then attempt to justify the unmasking, be explaining that it was needed to fully understand the context of the conversation and the impact on foreign policy. That's my prediction. If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:08:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? (1) any person other than a United States person, who--
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4); (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; (C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; (D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or (E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (2) any person who (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:10:53 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? (1) any person other than a United States person, who--
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4); (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; (C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; (D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or (E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (2) any person who (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). So they get a legitimate target to spy on and then it is discovered it is someone in the USA they are referring to in something related to why they are targets in the first place...........then they ask for unmasking??? If the answer is "yes"............good unmasking request. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:11:19 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If Powers made a request, her excuse will be THIS: She will point to a transcript of a conversation between two Foreign Targets. THEY will be speaking about interactions that impact foreign policy with a MASKED American. She will then attempt to justify the unmasking, be explaining that it was needed to fully understand the context of the conversation and the impact on foreign policy. That's my prediction. If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:13:17 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For Logan Act to be the basis of unmasking, you would have to presume that the identity of "AMERICAN CITIZEN #6743" or whatever in the Intel report was known prior to unmasking. What you presume isn't how it works.....basis for unmasking could be a wide range of suspicions.... America Citizen #6743: The new President thinks Z. What is the basis for the unmasking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:13:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If Powers made a request, her excuse will be THIS: She will point to a transcript of a conversation between two Foreign Targets. THEY will be speaking about interactions that impact foreign policy with a MASKED American. She will then attempt to justify the unmasking, be explaining that it was needed to fully understand the context of the conversation and the impact on foreign policy. That's my prediction. If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? People always assume that they were talking TO and American, when in fact they may have been talking ABOUT an American. Unmasking may occur if the topic is important, and the name of the individual is necessary to provide context (or evidence, or targeting data). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:14:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody with an agenda Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Powers made a request, her excuse will be THIS: She will point to a transcript of a conversation between two Foreign Targets. THEY will be speaking about interactions that impact foreign policy with a MASKED American. She will then attempt to justify the unmasking, be explaining that it was needed to fully understand the context of the conversation and the impact on foreign policy. That's my prediction. If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? However, my "hoping" is probably one of the most naïve statements I have ever made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:15:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, my "hoping" is probably one of the most naïve statements I have ever made. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:16:03 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That depends. Foreign Intelligence Officers and Foreign terrorists are good examples of "foreign targets." People always assume that they were talking TO and American, when in fact they may have been talking ABOUT an American. Unmasking may occur if the topic is important, and the name of the individual is necessary to provide context (or evidence, or targeting data). Will we ever know if that was abused by politician types like Susan Rice??? Just a guess on your part??? I am VERY skeptical that we will EVER really know for sure............too much slime in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:17:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't sell yourself short. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
However, my "hoping" is probably one of the most naïve statements I have ever made. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:17:36 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question: If anyone talks to a foreign target are they automatically legitimately subject to "unmasking"? If the answer is "yes".........who decides who is a "foreign target"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:18:25 AM EDT
[#31]
Good info from Lawfare about unmasking:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/unmasking-primer-issues-rules-and-possible-reforms The U.S. person’s name can be included in the SIGINT report only in three circumstances. Two of those (when the person has affirmatively consented, and when the information is public anyway) do not appear to be relevant here. So what matters is the third scenario, in which the U.S. person’s identity “is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance.”
The same section goes on to list seven “non-exclusive” examples of situations that would clear this bar. Here’s a short, paraphrased version of that list: (1) The communication suggests the US person has become an agent of a foreign power (2) The communication shows the US person is involved in leaking classified information (3) The communication links the US person to international drug trafficking (4) The communication shows the US person may be involved in other crime (and dissemination in that case is strictly limited to a law enforcement agency) (5) The communication shows that a foreign intelligence service is targeting the US person in some fashion (6) The identity of the US person somehow sheds light on a “possible threat to the safety of any person or organization” (7) The US person at issue currently is a “senior official of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government,” though in that case the person’s title rather than their name should be used. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:21:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, It shouldn't be that way and my view is that it was wrong. Their names were irrelevant. They had committed no crimes. They did nothing nefarious or wrong. The unmasking was done purely on a speculative "hunch" and "feelings" which ultimately was because of their political leanings as to why they did what they did. Once the unmasking took place, the underlings within the intelligence agencies and white house began spreading that information to make sure that it wasn't kept secret, although no crime was committed and it was classified. I am just trying to get at what was allowable for them to do with the set of rules we currently have on the books. I had a fairly decent understanding of what it might be but wanted it clarified in my mind a bit better. I am NOT commenting on the spying thing as a philosophical issue...........you, as stated, raise good points on that one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:23:21 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good info from Lawfare about unmasking: https://www.lawfareblog.com/unmasking-primer-issues-rules-and-possible-reforms Straight from the NSA-horse's mouth: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf I just don't know if we will ever really know one way or the other..........on either side............just too much damn slime in DC. Oh well, I hope Cincinnatus is right and maybe things are better than I think............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:27:18 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think I have a layman's understanding of what is required in the main...............thanks to all of you for solidifying it for me. I just don't know if we will ever really know one way or the other..........on either side............just too much damn slime in DC. Oh well hope Cincinnatus is right and maybe things are better than I think............ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good info from Lawfare about unmasking: https://www.lawfareblog.com/unmasking-primer-issues-rules-and-possible-reforms Straight from the NSA-horse's mouth: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf I just don't know if we will ever really know one way or the other..........on either side............just too much damn slime in DC. Oh well hope Cincinnatus is right and maybe things are better than I think............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:29:46 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good info from Lawfare about unmasking: https://www.lawfareblog.com/unmasking-primer-issues-rules-and-possible-reforms Straight from the NSA-horse's mouth: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSID%20SP0018.pdf If we (The People) are OK with this whole system, I truly do hope Trump and his Administration abuse the FOOOK out of it and wreck every single Democrat and RINO in the swamp. And every time the Lame Stream Media whines and complains, he can just point back to Feb-July 2017 and say, "Look, it's all above board, nothing to see here...move along." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:32:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The important clause is that unmasking needs to be "necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance". Anyone trying to say unmasking requires evidence of a criminal violation is misinformed (at best). If so you can see why I have LITTLE confidence on anything ever coming out of this crap on either side of the spectrum. It is all too "controlled" by a central power to EVER result in an honest investigative outcome IMHO. Maybe I am just too jaded but I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:32:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a different issue and you DO raise good points. I am just trying to get at what was allowable for them to do with the set of rules we currently have on the books. I had a fairly decent understanding of what it might be but wanted it clarified in my mind a bit better. I am NOT commenting on the spying thing as a philosophical issue...........you, as stated, raise good points on that one. I hope it goes to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:33:39 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this "process" seems OK to everyone/anyone? To me, the ONLY reason I think should be justifiable is contact or mention (directly) in communications with people on the terror watch list (is that still a thing)? Politics has GOT to be off limits. There is just no way that anyone at any level of power would NOT abuse information garnered on political opposition. If we (The People) are OK with this whole system, I truly do hope Trump and his Administration abuse the FOOOK out of it and wreck every single Democrat and RINO in the swamp. And every time the Lame Stream Media whines and complains, he can just point back to Feb-July 2017 and say, "Look, it's all above board, nothing to see here...move along." 
The sun does not rise and set on (counter)terrorism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:34:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understood.........the problem I have in the end is............"who decides this...........Congress, FBI, DOJ!!??" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:35:06 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sure hope you are wrong-for the sake of our country and democracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:36:53 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accountants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Understood.........the problem I have in the end is............"who decides this...........Congress, FBI, DOJ!!??"
(That and the General Counsel's Office in every agency...at least when it comes to saying "no" to anything/everything) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:39:26 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accountants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Understood.........the problem I have in the end is............"who decides this...........Congress, FBI, DOJ!!??" Not bad though youngin'!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:40:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Behold the true power holders in the federal government!
(That and the General Counsel's Office in every agency...at least when it comes to saying "no" to anything/everything) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Understood.........the problem I have in the end is............"who decides this...........Congress, FBI, DOJ!!??"
(That and the General Counsel's Office in every agency...at least when it comes to saying "no" to anything/everything) 
He was making a young kid's jab at the old guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:42:31 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The important clause is that unmasking needs to be "necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance". Anyone trying to say unmasking requires evidence of a criminal violation is misinformed (at best). What part of their conversation with the Russians raised concern that they were embarking on criminality? So far from what I have seen, absolutely nothing was said that would suggest a criminal act in the future or past. It was highly speculative on the NSA and CIA to allow unmasking and it was not important to know their names. These are private citizens of the USA we are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This will need to be argued in court. Whether the law allows unmasking based on a "hunch" or "feelings". That came straight out of Brennan's and Clapper's mouths the other day at the hearing, "We had a feeling the russians were influencing Flynn or Kushner." Paraphrasing I hope it goes to that. Which has ALWAYS made me VERY suspicious right from the start of all this spying stuff, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:45:26 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why was it necessary to unmask those names specifically in Trump's campaign? What part of their conversation with the Russians raised concern that they were embarking on criminality? So far from what I have seen, absolutely nothing was said that would suggest a criminal act in the future or past. It was highly speculative on the NSA and CIA to allow unmasking and it was not important to know their names. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The important clause is that unmasking needs to be "necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information or assess its importance". Anyone trying to say unmasking requires evidence of a criminal violation is misinformed (at best). What part of their conversation with the Russians raised concern that they were embarking on criminality? So far from what I have seen, absolutely nothing was said that would suggest a criminal act in the future or past. It was highly speculative on the NSA and CIA to allow unmasking and it was not important to know their names. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:51:17 AM EDT
[#47]
I wonder what the Ambassador to the UN was doing, unmasking people in the Trump camp? hehehe
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448161/susan-rice-john-brennan-samantha-power-unmasking-subpoenas-house-intelligence https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/samantha-power-subpoena-congress |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 11:59:25 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what the Ambassador to the UN was doing, unmasking people in the Trump camp? hehehe http://i.imgur.com/kCPqtEG.jpg http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448161/susan-rice-john-brennan-samantha-power-unmasking-subpoenas-house-intelligence |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 12:01:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Will she turn out to be the next Scooter Libby??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2017 12:03:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe, Hell Ben Rhodes is the guy who is behind all of this. He spins the webs, and as far as I know he is yet to be served. WAY TOO MUCH KNOWLEDGE of people in political power..........he is about as safe as I would be with a division of Marines defending me from a group of five armed toddlers. |
|
|
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.
