User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:10 PM EDT
 Shocking I tells ya, shocking |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:46:53 PM EDT
[#1]
the issue is not the issue. the issue is the revolution.
ETA: the issue of the day will be used as a lever to move FORWARD!™ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:48:46 PM EDT
[#2]
ballot box
soap box and now jury box |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:49:46 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:56:30 PM EDT
[#4]
There is no contradiction.
At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice. Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes. It's a completely different world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:58:34 PM EDT
[#5]
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:58:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the issue is not the issue. the issue is the revolution. ETA: the issue of the day will be used as a lever to move FORWARD!™ Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:59:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Was it her or the wise latina who said she agreed with the Heller decision then turned around and fucked 2a in Chicago? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:00:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Purgery?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:00:54 PM EDT
[#9]
But that's so 2009...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:03:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Imagine that, a politician reversed themselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:03:58 PM EDT
[#11]
She "evolved" in her thinking. She didn't lie -- you see. And you are too obtuse to know the difference. .....now pick up that can ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:17:56 PM EDT
[#12]
I've read thread after thread here in GD telling me gay marriage is a right.
People have even cited the 14th Amendment and everything. It appears Kagan's position "evolved" almost in lockstep with Barack Hussein. So: 1. Was Kagan lying in 2009? -or- 2. Was she (and the 4 other Justices) full of shit in their decision last week? -and/or- 3. Are all the morons crying "it's a right" and "more freedom" clueless? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:19:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. And there you have it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:20:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no contradiction. At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice. Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes. It's a completely different world. She evolved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:21:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Lying liar fucking lies
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:43:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no contradiction. At the time of her statement in 2009 she was not a Supreme Court justice. Once a person becomes a justice, rights which are hidden from mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras which surround the Constitution. Words which cannot be seen by mere mortals become visible in the emanations and penumbras of statutes. It's a completely different world. Thank you for clarifying. Now I understand. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:49:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Sleeper agent has been activated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:00:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Activist judges lie to get confirmed. Who'd have thunk it?
Confirmation should be a serious process, not the dog and pony show they put on now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:02:19 PM EDT
[#19]
So people can't change their minds? Seriously?
I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:03:01 PM EDT
[#20]
My shocked face.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:03:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? She never changed her mind. She just said what she had to at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:04:14 PM EDT
[#22]
that motherfucker really switched gears when King Of Queens got canceled.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:05:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box If only there was another type of box. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:06:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? 
"Kagan’s 2009 testimony before the Senate during confirmation hearings on her nomination to be Solicitor General. In the course of that testimony, Kagan stated: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” She was under oath. She didn't "change her mind," she was being honest because there is NO constitutional right to same sex marriage. She, and the four other justices made one up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:42 PM EDT
[#26]
I always assumed she was a lesbian anyway.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:09:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e6/fa/ce/e6facee6882ddfc676bf54194d55d5f0.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:10:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Right there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:11:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:19:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Well said. As Justice Scalia stated: "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:23:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Once those assholes get one of those seats, all bets are off. FOR FUCKING LIFE.
The Constitution is less than toilet paper to those lower specimens of the lawyer sub species. The next Congress needs to impeach the whole lot of traitorous shitheads, then execute them all, by wood chipper. Time to start over with a fresh batch of black dress wearing pieces of shit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:24:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. the last two paragraphs above are excellent. well stated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:26:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have to say stuff like that to get through your confirmation hearings. Yup. Lies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:32:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:35:43 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:35:51 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before. Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:43:37 PM EDT
[#37]
They ignored their duty to uphold the constitution. So ignore their interpretation of a "law".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:47:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box +1 Fuck Kagan right in the mouth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:50:34 PM EDT
[#39]
It depends on what the word, "is", is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:51:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before. Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. True, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to base their decisions on the law says, not on what they "feel" the law should say. Politicians are the ones who are supposed to respond to the concerns of their constituents; Supreme Court justices are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the Constitution. There is no precedent in American legal tradition for what the Supreme Court decided Friday. None whatsoever. They simply looked at the polls and made the socially popular decision, and then applied a thin covering of legal doublespeak to make it look like they were being serious. The Second Amendment, more than any other amendment, relies on a "traditionalist" interpretation to be held valid today. I find it incredibly ironic that any gun owner would praise the Supreme Court for willfully ignoring hundreds of years of American legal tradition and history in order to make a politically popular decision. If they do that in a future gun control case, then you can kiss your ARs goodbye. Okay. Serious question. Did Roe vs. Wade not do the same shit in regards to state laws? Yes, it did. Abortion was traditionally a state issue; the Supreme Court simply "found" a new federal right that had never existed before. Interestingly, Roe didn't "solve" the abortion issue, not by a long shot. I get the feeling that the gay marriage issue will be festering for quite a while, too. Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:56:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom.
I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 10:56:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Oh,......................you were serious about that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:03:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then one could argue that the legal precedent was already set. Sure, you could make that argument but why would you? Precedent does not matter with the SCOTUS as they are not bound by other SCOTUS decisions (theoretically, they are bound only by the text of the Constitution along with any further limitations set by Congress). They have reversed their own positions numerous times in the last 220+ some odd years. Unless your argument would be "SCOTUS has ruled in ways contrary to the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution in the past ergo this is not new or surprising" in which case I would say you had a point. To anyone paying attention who thinks this case (Obergefell v. Hodges) will help 2A jurisprudence, I have bad news for you: 4 of the 5 justices who voted in the majority were the same 4 who voted against Heller, McDonald, and would not have a problem reversing either Heller or McDonald on a future case. Take a look on what Alan Gura has said on what he thinks about certain SCOTUS jurists following Heller and McDonald and it will chill your blood. I do not care what one, two, or half a dozen + people do in their own homes or on their own property but this was an incredibly horrific ruling that will haunt this country for decades upon decades to come. Take a look around at how the lower courts are interpreting Heller and McDonald and behold just how little stare decisisi actually means (Bonidy vs USPS is a good example). We're in deep **** here folks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:05:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Say whatever you have to to get elected or appointed to power...do whatever you want once you are.
Psychopaths Narcissists and Sociopaths are attracted to politics like tall people are attracted to basketball. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:08:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:10:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ballot box soap box and now jury box hahaha haha hahaha. Let me guess - cheese it box? ?? May as well be a cracker jack box where we are heading. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:11:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:19:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? Justices have to be confirmed by the senate, and saying she was for gay marriage could have hurt her chances. I have nothing wrong with a politician changing their minds. Peoples thoughts and opinions can change, and I have nothing wrong with that, but the constitution did not change in the last 5 years, and the supreme court should rule on what the constitution says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:19:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shee needed to lie to bring us individual Freedom. I have been told right here, on THIS site, by Libertarian Lovers of Individual Freedom...that the means justify the ends. Sit back and enjoy your Freedom. Why do I get the impression Libertarians are unwittingly being used by the Democrat party to further the Democrat agenda? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 11:22:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So people can't change their minds? Seriously? I don't think Hillary Clinton or Obama have changed their minds in regards to gay marriages, but Justices aren't elected by popular vote. They have no motivation really for political doublespeak. Maybe I'm just retarded, but it seems like people aren't ever allowed to change their minds around here. You see it in the Ronald Reagan threads too. When I joined here, I believed in the death penalty. Now I don't believe in the death penalty at all. Guess I'm a sleeper-agent Communist activist, huh? Dude. You're fourteen. You don't know this yet, but you don't actually know or believe anything yet.
|
|
|
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.
