User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:15:31 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't care. At all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:25:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't care. At all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:30:31 PM EDT
[#3]
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:30:53 PM EDT
[#4]
RAINBOWS, RAINBOWS EVERYWHERE!!
Oh, and large ISIS inspired flags covered in dildos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:33:03 PM EDT
[#5]
God will judge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:33:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." The Court did that back in 1973. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:33:58 PM EDT
[#7]
As long as the government is telling us who we can marry and are teaching our kids to be good liberals in government run schools, I'm sure we'll be sound as a pound.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:36:28 PM EDT
[#8]
The most important lesson?
Incrementalism works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:38:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." This right here. In combination with the decision to interpret the Obamacare's "intent" versus the wording of the law the court has set some very, very bad precedents. Slick Willy was way ahead of his time with his depends on the meaning of is. Apparently words can now mean whatever you feel like making them mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:39:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Good points.
Never ever invite the man into your life.......ever----for any reason......EVER. Good for everyone to keep in mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:40:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:42:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." If you are saying that it's dangerous that the 14th was given preference over the 10th, I'd have to disagree with you. Individual rights, enumerated or not, should be held paramount to states rights. If you are saying something else, I don't get what you mean by the 14th trumping another amendment being dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:42:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Convoluted logic, like what Roberts used to vindicated Obamacare? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:43:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise.   
The only logic the SC has been using is "does this expand the .gov's power". National CCW is counter productive to that, unless there is some tax and permitting process that is required to get a national CCW licence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:45:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. That is not how this works at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:45:07 PM EDT
[#16]
The SC doesn't vote based on it's interpretation of the Constitution anymore. It's now a 100% political machine on both sides.They vote based on their personal political ideology, period. Or, they vote based on what they get told to do, IE Roberts being blackmailed about his kids. The SC died a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:46:19 PM EDT
[#17]
How about this for a lesson.
If you stand in the way of someone else's liberty they will fight you. If you fight back they will fight you harder. Since they want it more than you do they will probably win. When they win, they will put their boot on your neck and take away your liberty because you were a dick to them. As an insult added to perceived injury, they will use the same arguments to justify their boot on your neck as you used on them. How about Aikidoinstead of chess or checkers. "You can't do that because it makes me feel icky" is not good justification for anything. Why can't some here at Arfcom treat issues of not harmful to you/not your butthole/ not your pot needles/ not your marriage personal liberty the same way as they respond to overbearing HOAs and 2nd Amendment violators? Don't fuck me in the ass and I won't fuck you in the ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:46:42 PM EDT
[#18]
How the fuck do they plan on reproducing.....fulfilling gods wish?
Perversion wins. I really don't give a shit what two people do but what's the deal with having to hear about it...EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 12:47:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The SC doesn't vote based on it's interpretation of the Constitution anymore. It's now a 100% political machine on both sides.They vote based on their personal political ideology, period. Or, they vote based on what they get told to do, IE Roberts being blackmailed about his kids. The SC died a long time ago. Bingo. That is exactly why I posted what I did in the post above yours. It is also why the SCOTUS never should have been given the opportunity to make any decisions about marriage. However, since in days of yore our forefathers invited the man in, the man gets to do pretty much what he wants as is quite evident in the Obamacare ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 1:04:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only logic the SC has been using is "does this expand the .gov's power". National CCW is counter productive to that, unless there is some tax and permitting process that is required to get a national CCW licence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise.
The only logic the SC has been using is "does this expand the .gov's power". National CCW is counter productive to that, unless there is some tax and permitting process that is required to get a national CCW licence. This. The recent ScotusCare decision is an example of this principle and explains the disparate logic in the two decisions from the same court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:03:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't care. At all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:04:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:07:06 PM EDT
[#23]
I wonder if my 1st amendment rights would be upheld if I burned rainbow flag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:07:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Marriage licenses were not required in this country until some decades after its founding. Anyone could walk into a church, ask the preacher to marry them, and if he did, they were considered married. Done deal, no government involvement. Then came the overwhelming desire to keep black folks from marrying white folks. How do we do that? We have the state begin to require a license to get married. That way, the state government can control who can and who can't get married. Christian ministers went right along with this, welcoming this fantastic way to make sure we didn't mix the races. Fast forward to now. Thanks to Christian ministers going along with the idea of government-issued marriage licenses to make sure they got their way back then, we get to live with government's rules on issuing licenses today when someone else is in charge. In a nutshell, Christians stood by when folks invited the man into their lives by asking government to become involved in a social and religious transaction. Now, we get to live with the consequences of that choice. If the government was never invited into marriage, SCOTUS would not be able to rule on whether or not states have to issue licenses to any particular group. So, to all of you who are mourning the decision, let this serve as a lesson next time you find yourself agreeing with people who want to involve government in ANYTHING in which it is not already involved. To all of you who are celebrating the decision, let this serve as a lesson that the wheel always turns. It may not turn today, it may not turn tomorrow, but it will turn. Go ahead and celebrate the federal government decreeing what states have to do, but understand that when folks with whom you disagree are in charge, you will live by their proclamations. TL;DR: Never vote. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:08:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. No it doesn't. In fact based on the use of intent to decide what things mean, the liberal majority can now just decide the 2A was never intended to allow the ordinary citizen to have arms to the detriment of the majority. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that. It is a living document after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:08:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Double Tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:10:36 PM EDT
[#27]
I knew it. It's all the Christians' fault.
Scheming, conniving bastages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:14:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I knew it. It's all the Christians' fault. Scheming, conniving bastages. I wouldn't go as far as saying that. But, using a rite of the church as a means of getting tax breaks seemed to bite us in the ass. That slippery slope started long before Toby Keith was fletching Tim McGraw. Edit: Spelling |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:15:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are saying that it's dangerous that the 14th was given preference over the 10th, I'd have to disagree with you. Individual rights, enumerated or not, should be held paramount to states rights. If you are saying something else, I don't get what you mean by the 14th trumping another amendment being dangerous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." If you are saying that it's dangerous that the 14th was given preference over the 10th, I'd have to disagree with you. Individual rights, enumerated or not, should be held paramount to states rights. If you are saying something else, I don't get what you mean by the 14th trumping another amendment being dangerous. That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:17:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Marriage licenses were not required in this country until some decades after its founding. Anyone could walk into a church, ask the preacher to marry them, and if he did, they were considered married. Done deal, no government involvement. Then came the overwhelming desire to keep black folks from marrying white folks. How do we do that? We have the state begin to require a license to get married. That way, the state government can control who can and who can't get married. Christian ministers went right along with this, welcoming this fantastic way to make sure we didn't mix the races. Fast forward to now. Thanks to Christian ministers going along with the idea of government-issued marriage licenses to make sure they got their way back then, we get to live with government's rules on issuing licenses today when someone else is in charge. In a nutshell, Christians stood by when folks invited the man into their lives by asking government to become involved in a social and religious transaction. Now, we get to live with the consequences of that choice. If the government was never invited into marriage, SCOTUS would not be able to rule on whether or not states have to issue licenses to any particular group. So, to all of you who are mourning the decision, let this serve as a lesson next time you find yourself agreeing with people who want to involve government in ANYTHING in which it is not already involved. To all of you who are celebrating the decision, let this serve as a lesson that the wheel always turns. It may not turn today, it may not turn tomorrow, but it will turn. Go ahead and celebrate the federal government decreeing what states have to do, but understand that when folks with whom you disagree are in charge, you will live by their proclamations. TL;DR: Never vote. Licences are required in other countries, even countries whom have had no association with Christianity. This isn't a specific religious issue, this is a power issue, control issue, and a documentation issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:18:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." If you are saying that it's dangerous that the 14th was given preference over the 10th, I'd have to disagree with you. Individual rights, enumerated or not, should be held paramount to states rights. If you are saying something else, I don't get what you mean by the 14th trumping another amendment being dangerous. That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. Your reading is incorrect. The 10th also reserves rights to the people. If the right to be married is reserved to the people, then there's no problem. The right to be married was "invented" way on back in 1888. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:26:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your reading is incorrect. The 10th also reserves rights to the people. If the right to be married is reserved to the people, then there's no problem. The right to be married was "invented" way on back in 1888. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." If you are saying that it's dangerous that the 14th was given preference over the 10th, I'd have to disagree with you. Individual rights, enumerated or not, should be held paramount to states rights. If you are saying something else, I don't get what you mean by the 14th trumping another amendment being dangerous. That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. Your reading is incorrect. The 10th also reserves rights to the people. If the right to be married is reserved to the people, then there's no problem. The right to be married was "invented" way on back in 1888. Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:31:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. Your reading is incorrect. The 10th also reserves rights to the people. If the right to be married is reserved to the people, then there's no problem. The right to be married was "invented" way on back in 1888. Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. Churches don't determine who is and who is not married. The government does that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:33:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't care. At all. Does this bother you? Because I thought the original argument was all about not caring what people did behind closed doors... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/21/exclusive-goldman-sachs-tells-employees-wife-insults-gays-and-transgenders/ It's not about gay marriage, it's about thought control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:34:28 PM EDT
[#35]
The government should be out of the marriage business . If your church wants to marry you and your horse so be it .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:39:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Churches don't determine who is and who is not married. The government does that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That individual "right" to be married is NOT in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution. That leaves it up to the States, according to the 10th. You can't invent "rights" and then use the 14th to impose them upon the States. Or actually.... now you can. Your reading is incorrect. The 10th also reserves rights to the people. If the right to be married is reserved to the people, then there's no problem. The right to be married was "invented" way on back in 1888. Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. Churches don't determine who is and who is not married. The government does that. So prior to the government getting involved in marriage, no one was married? All those poor little bastard children spending eternity in government Limbo... 
If you get married by a church in a foreign country and move to the United States, you aren't married until the US Government gives you its "blessing"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:41:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't care. At all. I do, because the justification the SC used lays the door wide open for national CCW. The wording of the decision would make it an exercise in extremely convoluted logic to make it otherwise. The same court that had Roberts write in one decision, "the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase" and not 24 hours later, "under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be"? That kind of extremely convoluted logic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:43:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Sorry OP, you got that wrong in your zeal to bash Christians. Marriage laws were put on the books for inheritance purposes. Not everything is to keep the Back man down, sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:45:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." ^ this. Wait until someone says that they "have a right to be free from gun violence." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:48:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So prior to the government getting involved in marriage, no one was married? All those poor little bastard children spending eternity in government Limbo...
If you get married by a church in a foreign country and move to the United States, you aren't married until the US Government gives you its "blessing"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Utter nonsense. There is nothing that has ever prohibited Gay people from going to THEIR churches or high priestesses or best friends or magic rocks, and declaring themselves to be married. Usually we see the Bill of Rights as protecting the People FROM the government and government intrusion. In THIS case we see a group of people are DEMANDING government intrusion and a government service AND a redefinition of the terms and parameters of that service. Churches don't determine who is and who is not married. The government does that. So prior to the government getting involved in marriage, no one was married? All those poor little bastard children spending eternity in government Limbo...
If you get married by a church in a foreign country and move to the United States, you aren't married until the US Government gives you its "blessing"? Government got itself involved in marriage way back in the day. Since then, marriage has been a legal status, which means its determined by the government.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:52:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if my 1st amendment rights would be upheld if I burned rainbow flag. Why are you so full of hate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:57:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Government got itself involved in marriage way back in the day. Since then, marriage has been a legal status, which means its determined by the government. Are people from foreign countries who live outside the United States "married"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 2:59:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are people from foreign countries who live outside the United States "married"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Government got itself involved in marriage way back in the day. Since then, marriage has been a legal status, which means its determined by the government. Are people from foreign countries who live outside the United States "married"? I'm not sure how the US determines marital status of foreigners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:01:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if my 1st amendment rights would be upheld if I burned rainbow flag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:04:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how the US determines marital status of foreigners. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Government got itself involved in marriage way back in the day. Since then, marriage has been a legal status, which means its determined by the government. Are people from foreign countries who live outside the United States "married"? I'm not sure how the US determines marital status of foreigners. According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:04:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Government got itself involved in marriage way back in the day. Since then, marriage has been a legal status, which means its determined by the government. Are people from foreign countries who live outside the United States "married"? I'm not sure how the US determines marital status of foreigners. According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:16:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. There is more to marriage than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:16:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should care. They have established a very dangerous precedent with regards to the 14th Amendment trumping the other Amendments to protect non-enumerated "rights." Agreed. I believe they gave the right answer to the wrong question. The question should have been why the government was involved in marriage to begin with. By having to rule on the question brought before them, they had to choose one amendment over another, and that is a frighteningly bad precedent. No matter which way that ruling went down, it would have been choosing one amendment over another, and now it cannot be undone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:20:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is more to marriage than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. There is more to marriage than that. At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 3:30:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
According to you, who is and is NOT married, is determined solely by the Government. No, according to me, in this country marriage is a legal status which is defined by the government. There is more to marriage than that. At its base level, it is a legal status. People can attach more to it if they wish, such as moral or religious significance. It is a status that transcends US Law and borders. It did not come to exist via our legislatures. |
|
|
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.
