User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:12:45 AM EDT
[#1]
FIrst question, how do you feel about this..........TWINKIE!?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:17:56 AM EDT
[#2]
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:18:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:20:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:20:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Hey man, if we legalize marijuana, we can save the world with hemp fibers and there will be no more war, man.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:22:51 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:22:55 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Hey man, if we legalize marijuana, we can save the world with hemp fibers and there will be no more war, man. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm almost with Daniel Tosh on that one, "we should legalize marijuana so potheads never have anything to talk about again." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:23:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:24:15 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Right, because all the ARFCOM dopers loudly proclaim that marijuana doesn't impair you. They don't say shit about freedom and liberty, they just want to drive stoned.  Why does some clown always hop in marijuana related threads and claim "here come the arfcom dopers to say weed is good for you" or something else that nobody ever claims?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:25:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Right, because all the ARFCOM dopers loudly proclaim that marijuana doesn't impair you. They don't say shit about freedom and liberty, they just want to drive stoned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:25:33 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? Settle down ladies, lets have this be a nice and orderly weed thread, OK? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:26:01 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. Already covered and enforced by existing DUI laws. Maybe we should ban booze because it impairs you when driving? Sorry but driving drunk has killed my brother and 3 of my best friends. I see you're a "beer cooled" hypocrit though so keep enjoying your morally superior alcohol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:27:27 AM EDT
[#13]
I lessen to Peter Tilden, a morning talk show host.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:28:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Already covered and enforced by existing DUI laws. Maybe we should ban booze because it impairs you when driving? Sorry but driving drunk has killed my brother and 3 of my best friends. I see you're a "beer cooled" hypocrit though so keep enjoying your morally superior alcohol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:29:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? Ahhh yes...the inevitable arfcom callout of "libtard". And yet you're the one who apparently like bigger government...just like a liberal. Hows that for truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:29:19 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Right, because all the ARFCOM dopers loudly proclaim that marijuana doesn't impair you. They don't say shit about freedom and liberty, they just want to drive stoned. I've been here a lot longer than you and I don't know to what you are referring. Never seen it. Then again you are on ARFCOM a lot more than I am and you're probably a huge authority on what every single ARFCOMMER does or does not do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:30:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: They'll be in here with some cliche talking points to try and spin the article and discussion, don't worry. You have already taken first place on that angle.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:31:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Ahhh yes...the inevitable arfcom callout of "libtard". And yet you're the one who apparently like bigger government...just like a liberal. How that for truth. It's a miserable failure, probably something you're used to. I am extremely active in limiting big government through pro bono work with two local conservative movements. I'd venture to say I do more work to limit government in a week than you do in a year. Don't let facts get in the way of your knee-jerk bullshit though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:32:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
FIrst question, how do you feel about this..........TWINKIE!?!?!?! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:32:26 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: They'll be in here with some cliche talking points to try and spin the article and discussion, don't worry. You have already taken first place on that angle. I pointed out the fact of the article after wading through paragraphs of bullshit. If that's counter to what you wanted to hear, too bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:33:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Not sure if what I'm smelling is someone blazing a fattie or the impending lock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:34:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:35:09 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I lessen to Peter Tilden, a morning talk show host. You uh...puttin' Peter Tilden on a pedestal or something?  Speed |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:36:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Meow high are you right meow?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:38:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Not sure if what I'm smelling is someone blazing a fattie or the impending lock. Someone had their Wheaties pissed in this morning, that's for sure Vaca. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:47:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Well so far you've been wrong. Where are the druggies? Quoted: I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. By "druggies ", are you referring to individuals who find nothing wrong, on a moral basis, with responsibly enjoying the intoxicating effects of marijuana, even though they may not consume it themselves? The guys who think it's ridiculous for the law of the land saying you cannot have a naturally growing plant in your possession? I've seen those guys. I havn't seen the guys you are referring to though. Can you show us what you're even talking about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:57:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Well so far you've been wrong. Where are the druggies? Quoted: I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. By "druggies ", are you referring to individuals who find nothing wrong, on a moral basis, with responsibly enjoying the intoxicating effects of marijuana, even though they may not consume it themselves? You don't know what druggie means? What rock have you been hiding under your whole life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:58:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Right, because all the ARFCOM dopers loudly proclaim that marijuana doesn't impair you. They don't say shit about freedom and liberty, they just want to drive stoned. Why does some clown always hop in marijuana related threads and claim "here come the arfcom dopers to say weed is good for you" or something else that nobody ever claims? I agree with DUI being illegal. It's unfortunate that studies show that DUI wit weed encourages overly cautious driving as opposed to what we know happens when people consume alcohol the legal drug of choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 6:59:46 AM EDT
[#29]
If operating a vehicle impaired, it doesn't matter if its booze of cat turd weed, sock it to em. Give them a big long prison turd to smoke behind bars. Just using it demonstrates mental impairment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:03:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well so far you've been wrong. Where are the druggies? Quoted:
I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. By "druggies ", are you referring to individuals who find nothing wrong, on a moral basis, with responsibly enjoying the intoxicating effects of marijuana, even though they may not consume it themselves? You don't know what druggie means? What rock have you been hiding under your whole life? could you please remind us of how successful prohibition was the last time we tried it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:05:52 AM EDT
[#31]
I just want to know who the "resident druggies" are?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:09:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well so far you've been wrong. Where are the druggies? Quoted: I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. By "druggies ", are you referring to individuals who find nothing wrong, on a moral basis, with responsibly enjoying the intoxicating effects of marijuana, even though they may not consume it themselves? You don't know what druggie means? What rock have you been hiding under your whole life? Hah, I wish you could be someone else, reading what you just wrote. You'd laugh too. You are the only person who could read my post and figure that I don't know what is meant by the word "druggie" I will rephrase it for you: I think you are full of shit when you say arfcom is infested with drug users who jump in pot threads to claim that weed is good for you and everyone should drive stoned. Sure, you might see some stoner that found his way to arfcom GD from time to time, but this is far from a "crop of druggies."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:15:19 AM EDT
[#33]
If everyone would just take a few hits before posting, this place would be much friendlier.
Back to the article, whether or not you believe weed should be legalized, anyone who think it doesn't impair driving is a complete moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:19:23 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. It didn't seem to me that I was as impaired as I would have been after a few beers or glasses of wine or if I was one of the morons who drive while texting and yakking on cellphones. He didn't say drunk, said a few beers or glass of wine, more than a million people drink every night and drive home from bars. Never mind the cell phone thing, bad drivers are bad drives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:22:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Shocking. It effects thought process???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:23:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? We really need our own version of Goodwins Law, but adapted for 'libtard', or any of it's variants. It really never takes long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:24:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Yet, By your little witty comment " Coffee Fueled, Beer Cooled" leads me to believe you are a hard-line DRUG USER! ETOH and Caffeine are guess what???....DRUGS..Genius! But I guess someone can be a slurring,staggering,Booze stinking,Drunken SLOSH,who, by all the millions of alcohol related studies, is without even the slightest argument, 99.9% more likely to kill a family while drowning their brain in Booze.. Cause it's legal? Right?...Guess what, Even Law makers and get this....*Gasp* our upstanding,no farting, ENFORCERS of these stupid slave making laws..... Break the law. Everyday,day after day after day...I bet they even break the law while taking people to jail...Imagine that! What is it with drunk,slushes who are too drunk to know they may in fact be.... hypocrites..  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:32:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Coffee Fueled, Beer Cooled is against substance abuse?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:33:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well so far you've been wrong. Where are the druggies? Quoted: I've been here a lot longer than you ... You've been here 8 years versus my 6 years. I'm sure that gives you quite the edge when it comes to recognizing how these threads are going to go when it comes to the crop of druggies we've acquired over the past few years. By "druggies ", are you referring to individuals who find nothing wrong, on a moral basis, with responsibly enjoying the intoxicating effects of marijuana, even though they may not consume it themselves? You don't know what druggie means? What rock have you been hiding under your whole life? Hah, I wish you could be someone else, reading what you just wrote. You'd laugh too. You are the only person who could read my post and figure that I don't know what is meant by the word "druggie" I will rephrase it for you: I think you are full of shit when you say arfcom is infested with drug users who jump in pot threads to claim that weed is good for you and everyone should drive stoned. Sure, you might see some stoner that found his way to arfcom GD from time to time, but this is far from a "crop of druggies." The spin from guys like this you're responding to will give you vertigo. They belong to a crop of people here who will see the words "pot, marijuana, or cannabis" in a thread title, and immediately descend upon it to state "in before the druggies tell everyone pot is healthy". They can never point to these people they speak of, can never provide any evidence of a "group" of people stating this position, but they use it as if it were some monolithic fact they can base their unfounded bigotry on...the invisible crowd of "healthy pot" boogiemen who have "invaded" arf...  There will be one guy who spends 30 minutes digging up that one guy who said "cannabinoids can have valid medical purpose" and say "See? SEE??", but this one example is not a crowd, nor is it stating "pot is healthy", but we can split those hairs when the inevitable response to this post comes in... Regarding the topic of the post, I think it's a funny situation with the cop rolling up the blunt for the test subject, the references to the strains, etc, but at the end of the day the entire exercise is meaningless and is simply a propaganda stunt meant for the LA Times to run as some legitimate response to a "major concern" that cops are gearing up for out of control hordes of insanely stoned drivers should Prop 19 pass...transparent to anyone paying attention... Prop 19 is specific about it not affecting the laws regarding driving while intoxicated. Because something is decriminalized/legalized does not ensure more people will use it irresponsibly, nor does it ensure there will be more users (in fact, some studies point to decriminalization/legalization actually reducing usage) and those who are currently using it aren't going to change their behavior. In effect, nothing is going to change with regard to cops, drivers, and pot usage. In fact, I would offer the possibility that legalization of marijuana MAY lead to reduced consumption of other "legal" substances that are far more toxic and dangerous...alcohol...and that wouldn't be such a bad thing with regard to crimes in general. ETA: clarity... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:34:38 AM EDT
[#40]
Already, early in this thread, there are several posters who need to be forcibly stoned off their ass so they'd shut the fuck up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:36:31 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: If everyone would just take a few hits before posting, this place would be much friendlier. Back to the article, whether or not you believe weed should be legalized, anyone who think it doesn't impair driving is a complete moron. lol, so does having a passenger, before cell phones it was a high factor in wrecks. Listing to a bitchy wife is more impair than the joint I just smoked. In the 15 year I have driven, I have had 1 wreck, I was late for work speeding and slide off a turn and wrecked (wasn't high). So people who say stuff impairs you with out ever trying it them self are complete morons. Lets not talking about the people that eat and drive, I have seen people read the paper/books and drive. So riding with the nagging wife and loud mouth kids is impair driving, anyone who think it doesn't impair driving is a complete moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:36:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Officer: Your license. Where's your license?
Pedro: It's back there on the bumper, man! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:38:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Already, early in this thread, there are several posters who need to be forcibly stoned off their ass so they'd shut the fuck up. As i read this thread, i realized how much i don't like posting or reading shit in GD. 
Fucking Cry-Babies!
Take another hit of the devil drug, MEOW! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:43:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: "They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests. In before the resident druggies. Already covered and enforced by existing DUI laws. Maybe we should ban booze because it impairs you when driving? Sorry but driving drunk has killed my brother and 3 of my best friends. I see you're a "beer cooled" hypocrit though so keep enjoying your morally superior alcohol. We have plenty of people here on arfcom who believe that DUI should be legal. I've also known a lot of pot smokers who wouldn't drink and drive but who saw nothing wrong with driving while stoned or even smoking a bowl while driving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:44:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. In before the resident pro-big government, nanny state apologists. Ooops...too late. You have proven yourself foolish, a bad judge of character, and a drug apologist all in one fell swoop. Congrats Cheech. Whats wrong, cupcake - truth hurts? This was another in the long line of heavily slanted government hit "articles". If either of you don't know it's propaganda you need to go back to school. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:46:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. Imagine that-someone who has consumed an intoxicant is intoxicated. I wanna see a test where they get someone stoned and someone else drunk-not horribly drunk-maybe a 12 pack, and then do the test 8 hours later. I'll bet that the hungover (or possibly still drunk) driver does worse than the (now sober) pot smoker. Much better for someone to drink than partake in the demon weed. After all, nobody has ever died from alcohol consumption.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:48:09 AM EDT
[#47]
How much marijuana was administered, was an amount measured out? Were blood samples taken to see what their blood THC content was? Were different dosages tested? What were their levels of impairment compared to the dose? Was their dose a "usual" amount for the user, or was it more then usual, or less? Was p > .05? Were only 2 subjects were tested?
FTA "Trutanich seemed pleased with the findings" Sounds like bias. Was this double blind? Could have given fake marijuana (placebo) to make it double blind. The observers at the 3 light test, or any of the tests, should not have know whether the subjects were on or off the drug. I don't have a PHD in Pyschopharmacology, but I did take enough courses in psych to know this study is pretty crude. I'm not saying the findings of the study are wrong, they very well could be correct. If you're going to prove marijuana impairs, use good science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:49:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
How much marijuana was administered, was an amount measured out? Were blood samples taken to see what their blood THC content was? Were different dosages tested? What were their levels of impairment compared to the dose? Was their dose a "usual" amount for the user, or was it more then usual, or less? Was p > .05? Were only 2 subjects were tested? FTA "Trutanich seemed pleased with the findings" Sounds like bias. Was this double blind? Could have given fake marijuana (placebo) to make it double blind. The observers at the 3 light test, or any of the tests, should not have know whether the subjects were on or off the drug. I don't have a PHD in Pyschopharmacology, but I did take enough courses in psych to know this study is pretty crude. I'm not saying the findings of the study are wrong, they very well could be correct. If you're going to prove marijuana impairs, use good science. It's not science. This shows nearly as much confirmation bias as most global warming "studies". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:51:09 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
In before the resident druggies. Yet, By your little witty comment " Coffee Fueled, Beer Cooled" leads me to believe you are a hard-line DRUG USER! ETOH and Caffeine are guess what???....DRUGS..Genius! But I guess someone can be a slurring,staggering,Booze stinking,Drunken SLOSH,who, by all the millions of alcohol related studies, is without even the slightest argument, 99.9% more likely to kill a family while drowning their brain in Booze.. Cause it's legal? Right?...Guess what, Even Law makers and get this....*Gasp* our upstanding,no farting, ENFORCERS of these stupid slave making laws..... Break the law. Everyday,day after day after day...I bet they even break the law while taking people to jail...Imagine that! What is it with drunk,slushes who are too drunk to know they may in fact be.... hypocrites..
Cops are (in my experience) unruffled at the thought of driving home after consuming a few pitchers of beer. Fucking stupid. I don't care what your intoxicant of choice is-don't fucking drive a car after consuming it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2010 7:54:14 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
How much marijuana was administered, was an amount measured out? Were blood samples taken to see what their blood THC content was? Were different dosages tested? What were their levels of impairment compared to the dose? Was their dose a "usual" amount for the user, or was it more then usual, or less? Was p > .05? Were only 2 subjects were tested? FTA "Trutanich seemed pleased with the findings" Sounds like bias. Was this double blind? Could have given fake marijuana (placebo) to make it double blind. The observers at the 3 light test, or any of the tests, should not have know whether the subjects were on or off the drug. I don't have a PHD in Pyschopharmacology, but I did take enough courses in psych to know this study is pretty crude. I'm not saying the findings of the study are wrong, they very well could be correct. If you're going to prove marijuana impairs, use good science. Exactly, the bias and uncontrolled variables are overwhelming. "Study", while hilarious, can't be taken as valid. |
|
|
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.
