User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 10:27:59 PM EDT
[#1]
This man is a murderer:
[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/145000/images/_148189_Osama_bin_Laden300.jpg[/img] He killed civilians because he dint like the moral vallues that the USA represented. This man is a Terrorist: [img]http://resident-groups.s5.com/terrorists.jpg[/img] He killed the people responsible for keeping his people down and gave them back the respect that comes by having a government working for you and not someone living miles away. One fights for a dream of something better, fights oppression, while the other hopes to force his will upon you by any means at his disposal. One cause can be justified the other cannot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 10:31:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Bullshit, Scarecrow. A government during war may commit [b]war crimes[/b] which is different than terrorism. These distinctions are obviously lost on many. War crimes are terrorism. Read the defenition of terrorism and the defenition of war crimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 11:04:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Bin laden is more of a terrorist/murderer; on the one hand he claims that he just wants America to leave the middle east(attacks WTC to try to break our will to fight), but on the other hand he says that he thinks that we (the infidels) should all die.
The problem with attacking the people behind an "invasion" is that it usually just strengthens their will to fight. As an example; what would have happened if we sent a few thousand people to England during the revolution to attack the people in their homeland? It would have given them a reason to care about our little rebellion, and it would have given the war popular support in Britain. Now imagine if nazi Germany had sent some shock troops to the U.S. in the beginning of WW2. We would have been bombing Berlin in less than a year. Why? Suddenly the war isn't so far away, and we have the people's popular support for a retaliatory stike. Often times people just don't give a rat's ass until they are personally affected and then they tend to be angry. Before sept. 11th did you really give a flying f*ck whether or not bin laden continued to suck air? Probobly not, because the targets he had struck were so far away. (depends on if you were personally affected by one of his other attacks, the information you had concerning his intentions, and if you knew bin laden was a goat f*cking-POS-raghead.) My point is that if we are going to be...wait...what the f*ck was my point?... I'll shutup now because I am not sure this is all going to make sense. (i.e. am I contradicting myself at some point in this post, and looking like a dumb@ass) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2002 11:50:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The problem with attacking the people behind an "invasion" is that it usually just strengthens their will to fight. I'm told that the WW2 attacks on German civilians strengthened the German will; but obviously the nuclear attacks on Japanese civilians broke their will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:18:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: The problem with attacking the people behind an "invasion" is that it usually just strengthens their will to fight. I'm told that the WW2 attacks on German civilians strengthened the German will; but obviously the nuclear attacks on Japanese civilians broke their will. I would imagine it has something to do with national pride. Americans = we're #1...you f*ck with us, your gonna pay Canucks = It's fookin cold up eer so don't mess with Canada eh? Frogs = **spoken in a whiney french accent** stupid americans! you americans are so stupid! the fools think they are some kind of world power or something...everone knows that france is the only true super power.[rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:46:14 AM EDT
[#6]
[b]For the guys that claim McVeigh was setup or was a patsy.[/b]
Please cite your source....... or do I need to adjust my tin foil hat to receive that info? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:18:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: The thirteen colonies were an English territory under rule of the King Of England. The The Thirteen colonies were under Englands rule and wanted to become their own country and live how they saw fit. They were trying to make changes and secede with violence. Now if a group of people is acting against the interest of the ruling party with violence, Id call that domestic terrorism. Then, as I said, you do not know what the term means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 5:55:02 AM EDT
[#8]
If you selectively target and interdict organs and agents of the opressive government without harm to the population you claim to represent and defend, you're a freedom fighter.
If you view a little collateral damage as a necessary and inevitable thing, and aren't kept up at night by bringing harm to the population you claim to represent and defend, you're a domestic terrorist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:07:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Im sure if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc were alive today they would be condoning if not practicing the destruction of federal buildings and the like. They were terrorists (according to this thread's definition thus far) in their day against an oppressive (English) govt. No, they were not terrorists by anyone's definition. They led an organized army in open warfare against soldiers. You obviously have no idea what the term "terrorism" means. So our intelligence guys and special forces people are "terrorists"? The people who hit the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Khobar towers in Saudi,a destroyer in harbor, and various US embassies, are not terrorists? Or is it only people with a govt. ID card who are not terrorists? I always thought economic targets and govt. buildings were legitimate targets of war! We sure as hell have targeted a bunch of them in the last 15 years or so...... Just FYI Rik, civilians and civilian buildings were targeted by both sides in our revolutionary war..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 6:53:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Im sure if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc were alive today they would be condoning if not practicing the destruction of federal buildings and the like. They were terrorists (according to this thread's definition thus far) in their day against an oppressive (English) govt. Nonsense. They were honorable men. None of these Domestic terrorists we've seen, have had a shred of honor. Honorable men DO NOT target Mailmen and Government employed daycare workers. That's cowardly and vile. All of you who think that there is somehow a terrorist-like solution to the problems with OUR country, just don't get it. You know as well as any of us, that this type of thing wouldn't work HERE. Yet some of you still dream of it, aware of its futility. That fantasy is about rage, bitterness, wanton destruction, and probably self-hatred. It has nothing to do with progress, or a better future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:28:31 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: So our intelligence guys and special forces people are "terrorists"? Do you even bother to read my posts? I guess not, since I already gave the textbook definition of terrorist, and it is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION. Military personell can commit war crimes but they are not terrorists. This is NOT A VALUE JUDGEMENT, it's a MATTER OF DEFINITION. The people who hit the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Khobar towers in Saudi,a destroyer in harbor, and various US embassies, are not terrorists? They were terrorists already, as they had committed other terroristic acts, but no, those particularly strikes were not, by definition, terrorism. You make the repeated mistake of considering the word "terrorism" to be a value judgement. It is NOT. It's a real term with real meaning. The Japanese comitted atrocious war crimes during WWII, but they were not TERRORIST acts. Or is it only people with a govt. ID card who are not terrorists? By definition. I always thought economic targets and govt. buildings were legitimate targets of war! We sure as hell have targeted a bunch of them in the last 15 years or so...... Just FYI Rik, civilians and civilian buildings were targeted by both sides in our revolutionary war..... At times, perhaps...but terrorism is defined as an INTENT...you can blow up a civilian building to kill a government official inside and also kill civilians as collateral damage and it is not terrorism. But if you blow up civilian targets to CREATE TERROR among the civilian population, then it's terrorism. Words have meanings. Learn them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 8:59:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: So our intelligence guys and special forces people are "terrorists"? Do you even bother to read my posts? I guess not, since I already gave the textbook definition of terrorist, and it is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION. Military personell can commit war crimes but they are not terrorists. This is NOT A VALUE JUDGEMENT, it's a MATTER OF DEFINITION. Or is it only people with a govt. ID card who are not terrorists? By definition. I always thought economic targets and govt. buildings were legitimate targets of war! We sure as hell have targeted a bunch of them in the last 15 years or so...... Just FYI Rik, civilians and civilian buildings were targeted by both sides in our revolutionary war..... At times, perhaps...but terrorism is defined as an INTENT...you can blow up a civilian building to kill a government official inside and also kill civilians as collateral damage and it is not terrorism. But if you blow up civilian targets to CREATE TERROR among the civilian population, then it's terrorism. Words have meanings. Learn them. I have learned them, I just choose to ignore modern "politicallly correct" terminology. Websters Superior dictionary 1937; "Terrorism; a system of government by terror; intimidation." "Terrorist; one who governs by terror, or inspires fear in others." I find it facinating how words change meaning, or "evolve" over time. Do you think the words in our Constitution "evolve" over time too? I.E. "Living Constitution"? How 'bout words like "Freedom" and "Liberty"? Do they have different meanings than they did in the mid 1700s? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:11:00 AM EDT
[#13]
I don't understand why some people think that government workers are always considered innocents. It is government workers that implement and enforce the unjust laws of the legislators. "Just doing my job" is not a legitamite excuss IMHO, that is the same excuss used by German soldiers at the Jewish death camps. At some point a person needs to take responsibility for what there job entails. A leo going house to house confiscating weapons can easily claim he is "Just doing his job" and at the same time be violating his oath, at what point would he be a hypocrate???
True the intent of terrorism is to create havoc. Havoc can also sway the support of your mission to your direction, especially if it is used to make the enemy look bad. Terrorism and propoganda often go hand in hand. Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:12:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: If you view a little collateral damage as a necessary and inevitable thing, and aren't kept up at night by bringing harm to the population you claim to represent and defend, you're a domestic terrorist. According to this definition, isn't the U.S. guilty of terrorism in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:19:13 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: terrorism is defined as an INTENT...you can blow up a civilian building to kill a government official inside and also kill civilians as collateral damage and it is not terrorism. According to this definition, isn't McVeight innocent of terrorism? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:41:53 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: I don't understand why some people think that government workers are always considered innocents. It is government workers that implement and enforce the unjust laws of the legislators. "Just doing my job" is not a legitamite excuss IMHO, that is the same excuss used by German soldiers at the Jewish death camps. At some point a person needs to take responsibility for what there job entails. A leo going house to house confiscating weapons can easily claim he is "Just doing his job" and at the same time be violating his oath, at what point would he be a hypocrate??? Sgtar15 I would love to see some responses to this question. I maintain that we are all accountable for our actions, and our choice of work and who we work for....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 9:57:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: According to this definition, isn't the U.S. guilty of terrorism in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? This discussion is about [b]domestic[/b] terrorism, isn't it? Let me check the thread title: [b]Why do we hate domestic terrorist??[/b] Yep. Obviously, in any armed engagement there are going to be innocent casualties. But detonating a pipe bomb in a park full of people during the Olympics is patently terrorism, as is blowing up a truck full of ANFO in front of a building containing, among other things, a day care center. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:26:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: terrorism is defined as an INTENT...you can blow up a civilian building to kill a government official inside and also kill civilians as collateral damage and it is not terrorism. According to this definition, isn't McVeight innocent of terrorism? Terrorism isn't a criminal charge, it's a definition. McVeigh was guilty of murder. Don't make the same mistake that Liberty86 is repeatedly comitting...terrorism is NOT a value judgement, it is a political science definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:46:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Again, what were we during the 1770's?? Sgtar15 Simple. We were civilians who declared our "Independance" from Britian and then DEFENDED ourselves and the land we were living on against THEIR soldiers. We did not declare "War" on Britain. We did not go over to Britain and bomb their pubs. We did not send troops/soldiers/terrorists (whatever you want to call them) over to Britain to attack their schoolhouses, churches or grocery markets. Their soldiers CAME HERE. We fought their SOLDIERS (not their civilians) HERE, on OUR LAND, not half-way across the globe. Is that too difficult to understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:58:46 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: terrorism is defined as an INTENT...you can blow up a civilian building to kill a government official inside and also kill civilians as collateral damage and it is not terrorism. According to this definition, isn't McVeight innocent of terrorism? Terrorism isn't a criminal charge, it's a definition. McVeigh was guilty of murder. Don't make the same mistake that Liberty86 is repeatedly comitting...terrorism is NOT a value judgement, it is a political science definition. I agree with you that the term "terrorism" should be clearly defined if the term is to be used without causing confusion. But it seems like there is no general agreement here as to the definition of terrorism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:15:12 PM EDT
[#21]
sgtar15,
The "Goverment workers" that you refer too in your last post are American citazens they could be our sons,daughters,moms,Dads or close friend or relative and are not an invading army like the British were. That is why there is never going to be a 2nd revolution against the "Goverment".Because the "Goverment" is us. And you fools who dream about a revolution should get a clue and pray that it never happens. To evoke change in our society we still have the soap and ballot box. Osama,mcveigh,the smiling mailbox bomber prick and any others who terrorize Americans should be put to death.plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:17:41 PM EDT
[#22]
As in "Unintended Consequences" you need to break some glass first. If you can get government over-reaction to something like that then you can escalate. There will never be enough sympathy for the positions of people like McVeigh (IMO) or the Unabomber or assassins of abortion doctors etc. to gain enough political traction for change. The only possibility of this happening is for people to generally lose respect for the law and due process. Not there yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:50:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: sgtar15, The "Goverment workers" that you refer too in your last post are American citazens they could be our sons,daughters,moms,Dads or close friend or relative and are not an invading army like the British were.... The "Goverment" is us. No, the government workers are not us. I am a citizen of the United States, as defined by the Constitution. Anyone who violates the Constitution is an enemy of my country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:11:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I don't understand why some people think that government workers are always considered innocents. Maybe because of "innocent until proven guilty"? Quoted: It is government workers that implement and enforce the unjust laws of the legislators. [red]"Just doing my job" is not a legitamite excuss IMHO, that is the same excuss used by German soldiers at the Jewish death camps.[/red] Were the paper-pushing, mail-sorting, floor-sweeping, phone-operating, word-processing, clerk-typist-civil servants at the Murrow bldg running a death camp??? You're such a dumbass!! Quoted: At some point a person needs to take responsibility for what there job entails. A leo going house to house confiscating weapons can easily claim he is "Just doing his job" and at the same time be violating his oath, at what point would he be a hypocrate??? Quoted: sgtar15, The "Goverment workers" that you refer too in your last post are American citazens they could be our sons,daughters,moms,Dads or close friend or relative and are not an invading army like the British were.... The "Goverment" is us. [red]No, the government workers are not us.[/red] I am a citizen of the United States, as defined by the Constitution. Anyone who violates the Constitution is an enemy of my country. [b]Yo! Nutjobs![/b] Can either [b]sickshooter[/b] or [b]sgtar15[/b] answer this: What SPECIFIC ACTS did these "enemies" of yours do that violated the US Constitution? [u]Partial list of Oklahoma City Bombing[/u]: [b]Almon, Baylee, 1[/b] Argo, Pamela, 36 Bolden, Army Sgt. 1st Class Lola Rene, 40 Bowers, Carol, 53 Brady, Woodrow ïïWoody,ÍÍ 41 Brown, Cynthia Campbell, 26 [b]Chavez, Zackary, 3[/b] Chipman, Robert [b]Coverdale, Elijah, 2[/b] [b]Coverdale, Aaron, 5[/b] Curry, Stephen, 44 Daniels, Brenda, 42 Driver, Sheila, 28 [b]Eckles, Ashley, 4[/b] Howell, Wanda, 34 [b]Johnson, Domonique London, 2[/b] Leonard, Donald R., 50 Lenz, Carrie, 26 McCullough, Kenneth, 36 Maroney, Mickey, 50 Rigney, Trudy Seidl, Kathy L., 39 [b]Smith, Chase, 3[/b] [b]Smith, Colton 2[/b] Stewart, John T., 51 Stratton, Dolores M., 51, Moore Turner, Larry, 43 Watkins, Wanda Welch, Julie, 23 Westberry, Robert, 57 Whicher, Alan, 40 Edited to correct quote attributions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:20:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: If the government finally goes truly apeshit and I start shooting at LEOs and soldiers, am I a terrorist? And thus an asshole? Tread lightly with the epithet "terrorist" because we live in an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean what the government wants them to mean. My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:23:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Well stated, Mac.
I myself was a college intern one summer in the USGS and helped make maps. Two uncles were in the National Guard and served with honor in the Pacific theater during WWII. My aunt worked in the accounting office to make sure they got paid. So which of us deserve death for our dastardly deeds? As I recall, our forefathers only resorted to revolution after all other avenues where closed to them. To say that they would approve of the actions of a Tim McVeigh or a Ted Kazinski is an affront to all Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:31:32 PM EDT
[#27]
What SPECIFIC ACTS did these "enemies" of yours do that violated US laws?
[b]Chanel Andrade 1 Dayland Lord Gent 3 Paiges Gent 1 Bobbie Layne Howell 2 Cyrus Howell 8 Star Howell 6 Serenity Sea Jones 4 Chica Jones 22 mo. Little One Jones 22 mo. Kara Brittani Little Lisa Marie Martin 13 Sheila Renee Martin 15 Abigail Martinez 11 Audrey Marlene Martinez 13 Crystal (Barrios) Martinez 3 Isaiah (Barrios) Martinez 4 Joseph Samual Martinez 8 Melissa Morrison 6 Mayannah Schneider 2 Aisha Gyarfas Summers 17 Startle Summers 1 Hollywood Sylvia 2 Rachel Sylvia 13[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:38:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: What SPECIFIC ACTS did these "enemies" of yours do that violated US laws? [b]Chanel Andrade 1...[/b] I'm not rationalizing their deaths, [b]peashooter[/b] and [sgtar15[/b] ARE rationalizing the deaths of paper-pushing clerks and their kids. Are you saying that the deaths of innocent children at the hands of JBT is justification to view ALL Gov't employees as "enemies"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:42:59 PM EDT
[#29]
All those names are mearly tangents that take us off the original subject. I have stated before that I do not support what McVeign did.
What I am trying to say that someday we will see more actions like this, and we will support them. Why? Because they will benefit us. We know that people or dying in Afganistan, even innocents, yet we support the war because we believe in the cause. The days of the soap box and voting box is over!! You make pray and believe differantly but it is sadly true. Sooner or later action will need to be taken or the US will no longer be a world force. Graet Britian is a perfect example, they ruled the world in the 1700's yet today they are barely influencial. They died from within, lost creativity and power by their own hands. Change rarely comes without severe action. Vote and preach all you want, but remember that it got us to where we are today. Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:50:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand why some people think that government workers are always considered innocents. Maybe because of "innocent until proven guilty"? Quoted: It is government workers that implement and enforce the unjust laws of the legislators. [red]"Just doing my job" is not a legitamite excuss IMHO, that is the same excuss used by German soldiers at the Jewish death camps.[/red] Were the paper-pushing, mail-sorting, floor-sweeping, phone-operating, word-processing, clerk-typist-civil servants at the Murrow bldg running a death camp??? You're such a dumbass!! You have misattributed these quotes to me. I believe it was sgtar15 who said these things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:51:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: You have misattributed these quotes to me. I believe it was sgtar15 who said these things. Yes, I'm sorry. I lost track of my [quote ] tabs. I'll correct it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:06:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: What SPECIFIC ACTS did these "enemies" of yours do that violated the US Constitution? When you are done listing the specific acts committed against the U.S. by each victim in Hiroshima and Afghanistan, I will answer your question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:13:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: What SPECIFIC ACTS did these "enemies" of yours do that violated the US Constitution? When you are done listing the specific acts committed against the U.S. by each victim in Hiroshima and Afghanistan, I will answer your question. Nope. I asked first. And this thread is about [b]DOMESTIC[/b] terrorists. If you want to dodge a question, either just don't reply or just say "I choose to dodge your question". Enough of the red herring BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:25:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: No, the government workers are not us. I am a citizen of the United States, as defined by the Constitution. Anyone who violates the Constitution is an enemy of my country. Actually I was a government worker and managed to never violate any rights of any citizen. You are not a citizen so much as an asshole. You may find more sympathy on assault web. But you'll get none from me, and I imagine very little from the other former and current LE/military pesonnel who frequent this board and work for the government in a capacity that supports the Constitution so you don't have to personally. But tell you what, prove us wrong. See if you can straighten out Kali with a LE shooting spree and we will reconsider your position of advocating terrorism and or violence on the local government. I'm sure you and your trusty SKS will work things out just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:36:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Everybody please take a deep breath and a stretch.
Let's try to keep this a little less personal, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:44:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Everybody please take a deep breath and a stretch. Let's try to keep this a little less personal, please. Must have been the arbitrary suggestion that anyone who works for the government (LE/Military) is a valid target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:50:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Everybody please take a deep breath and a stretch. Let's try to keep this a little less personal, please. Must have been the arbitrary suggestion that anyone who works for the government (LE/Military) is a valid target. Naw, it's just that the general tone has slid into the personal over the last several posts. I'd rather see this topic alive than locked, but lock it I will if it degenerates further and becomes a pissing match. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:58:21 PM EDT
[#38]
No that was MY reason for the personal nature of my reply to 6shooter. I could have very easily been one of the people he so casually discusses shooting.
I had tried to avoid this topic altogether but I hate to see this place turn into another "cop killer" forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:01:06 PM EDT
[#39]
From page two.......
Quoted: Quoted: but innocents always get caught in the crossfire. Why not just attack FBI field offices, then provoke a retaliatory response. Plant lots of misleading evidence and leads, have the FBI raid and shoot up innocent people's homes. Using their hands to terrorize innocents and thereby provoke public outrage toward the government. And on that note I will excuse myself from participation in this topic as some of you just don't get it. So much for keeping one's word. Sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:04:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: From page two....... Quoted: Quoted: but innocents always get caught in the crossfire. Why not just attack FBI field offices, then provoke a retaliatory response. Plant lots of misleading evidence and leads, have the FBI raid and shoot up innocent people's homes. Using their hands to terrorize innocents and thereby provoke public outrage toward the government. And on that note I will excuse myself from participation in this topic as some of you just don't get it. So much for keeping one's word. Sgtar15 OK, keeping my word. Thread locked, trolling. |
|
|
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.
