User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 12:31:51 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, now they are... The last ~15 years, not so much.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Boomer here. I don't give even a gliding fuck, much less a flying fuck, about the Gen-x, Gen-z, Gen-fuck all cry babies and how they're getting fucked over by my generation. Not my problem. Not my tears. So sad. Too bad. Deal with it. My SS hits the bank like clockwork the 2nd Wednesday of the month. That sweet SS deposit of $2000 a month gets put into CDs and buys me a new car every few years. I mean, the .gov just gives me $2000 and I don't even need it, honestly. How glorious is that? If I feel like spending it on hookers and blow, there is no budget busting involved. It's like they just want me to party like a 68 year old rock star.  Damn, people still use CD's? You really are king boomer For real! Probably still buys savings bonds too.  I bonds are great right now. And I am a millennial. Well, now they are... The last ~15 years, not so much. Fun example that just popped into my head... Figures will be from general memory since I don't feel like digging for exact ones. I just recently received a number of EE Savings Bonds from my estranged Boomer father that had bought them yearly from when I was like 10 (when my parents divorced) to when I turned 18 (I'm 40 now) with the intent to give them to me when they matured. They were generally $100 ones with 1 $50. The grand total for those 8 bonds that were matured was just under $1000. He was very proud of the gift he was giving me! I found an investment calculator which had the general DJI Index Fund listed and, assuming it is correct, if my father had taken that same $750 spent on savings bonds and put it in that index fund, he could have been giving me about $45,000 (adjusted for inflation) instead, which would have done a far better job of making up for his absence. Here's the icing on the cake. I sent these savings bonds into the Treasury for redemption back in mid-October. To date, I still have not been paid out on them. They did manage to send me a tax form for the interest though! I tried calling into the Treasury to ask where TF my money was. Hour and a half wait time, because you know how every gainfully employed individual has that much time to sit on hold during government hours.  But, the government is such a great investment vehicle for retirement!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 12:51:23 PM EDT
[#2]
get rid of welfare/housing first
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 12:56:47 PM EDT
[#3]
It should be ended right along with every other taxpayer funded benefits programs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 1:23:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Believe it or not, Bush II had a fantastic plan that would work to wean the country off of SS. It was incremental, as it should be. Those that were forced to participate, and were nearing the end of their employment years, would , if they wished, continue to contribute the full amount, and would receive their full benefits.
I don't remember the age breakdown, but the next youngest by 5-10 years, would be required to contribute about 10% less, and would get 10% less if they chose to take it, but they'd have 10% more, pre tax to invest. The next group down, would only contribute 20% less, get 20% less if they chose to take SS, but they'd have 20% more, pre tax, to invest. That would continue down in the age brackets until new workers, as of his presidential years, didn't have any SS taxes taken out, and there would be no SS for them at retirement, but, they would have all of what they would have paid into it, to invest, pre tax. There was a lot more to it, and I'm remembering basics, and my percentages are off, but that is the type of plan they had, but it would have ended SS over the working life of the youngest workers. So if you were 20, when retirement rolled around at 65, SS would be gone. That sort of plan is the best way. Nobody that was forced to pay into, should be deprived of their benefits, but nobody that doesn't want to, should be forced to pay into it. Weaning down, is the only good way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 1:37:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Raise the age to start collecting your benefits by a decade or so. I’d enthusiastically vote for a candidate running on such a platform. That’s just a decade longer people will pay in to then die before getting their investment back. It needs to end completely—phased out or cold turkey I don’t care. I’m with above poster who said that even 25yrs into paying, I’d be content to stop getting ripped so that I’d have more money to invest myself. Once adjusted for inflation, the money people receive surely can’t be equivalent to the present value of the dollar as they were paying in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 1:43:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Believe it or not, Bush II had a fantastic plan that would work to wean the country off of SS. It was incremental, as it should be. Those that were forced to participate, and were nearing the end of their employment years, would , if they wished, continue to contribute the full amount, and would receive their full benefits. I don't remember the age breakdown, but the next youngest by 5-10 years, would be required to contribute about 10% less, and would get 10% less if they chose to take it, but they'd have 10% more, pre tax to invest. The next group down, would only contribute 20% less, get 20% less if they chose to take SS, but they'd have 20% more, pre tax, to invest. That would continue down in the age brackets until new workers, as of his presidential years, didn't have any SS taxes taken out, and there would be no SS for them at retirement, but, they would have all of what they would have paid into it, to invest, pre tax. There was a lot more to it, and I'm remembering basics, and my percentages are off, but that is the type of plan they had, but it would have ended SS over the working life of the youngest workers. So if you were 20, when retirement rolled around at 65, SS would be gone. That sort of plan is the best way. Nobody that was forced to pay into, should be deprived of their benefits, but nobody that doesn't want to, should be forced to pay into it. Weaning down, is the only good way. Why didn't it succeed is the next question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 2:05:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll never need it, but I think it should be in place for those who will... the issue is cutting the FIFY If you could limit SS payments to those that actually paid in and reached retirement age and SSDI to those that are verifiably disabled,actually disabled physically not just hurt feelings disabled it would save billions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 2:37:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why didn't it succeed is the next question. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Believe it or not, Bush II had a fantastic plan that would work to wean the country off of SS. It was incremental, as it should be. Those that were forced to participate, and were nearing the end of their employment years, would , if they wished, continue to contribute the full amount, and would receive their full benefits. I don't remember the age breakdown, but the next youngest by 5-10 years, would be required to contribute about 10% less, and would get 10% less if they chose to take it, but they'd have 10% more, pre tax to invest. The next group down, would only contribute 20% less, get 20% less if they chose to take SS, but they'd have 20% more, pre tax, to invest. That would continue down in the age brackets until new workers, as of his presidential years, didn't have any SS taxes taken out, and there would be no SS for them at retirement, but, they would have all of what they would have paid into it, to invest, pre tax. There was a lot more to it, and I'm remembering basics, and my percentages are off, but that is the type of plan they had, but it would have ended SS over the working life of the youngest workers. So if you were 20, when retirement rolled around at 65, SS would be gone. That sort of plan is the best way. Nobody that was forced to pay into, should be deprived of their benefits, but nobody that doesn't want to, should be forced to pay into it. Weaning down, is the only good way. Why didn't it succeed is the next question. Because it made too much sense, and would have fixed a serious problem, which most politicians don't want fixed. Most politicians don't want to fix problems, because they won't have anything to run on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 3:11:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Believe it or not, Bush II had a fantastic plan that would work to wean the country off of SS. It was incremental, as it should be. Those that were forced to participate, and were nearing the end of their employment years, would , if they wished, continue to contribute the full amount, and would receive their full benefits. I don't remember the age breakdown, but the next youngest by 5-10 years, would be required to contribute about 10% less, and would get 10% less if they chose to take it, but they'd have 10% more, pre tax to invest. The next group down, would only contribute 20% less, get 20% less if they chose to take SS, but they'd have 20% more, pre tax, to invest. That would continue down in the age brackets until new workers, as of his presidential years, didn't have any SS taxes taken out, and there would be no SS for them at retirement, but, they would have all of what they would have paid into it, to invest, pre tax. There was a lot more to it, and I'm remembering basics, and my percentages are off, but that is the type of plan they had, but it would have ended SS over the working life of the youngest workers. So if you were 20, when retirement rolled around at 65, SS would be gone. That sort of plan is the best way. Nobody that was forced to pay into, should be deprived of their benefits, but nobody that doesn't want to, should be forced to pay into it. Weaning down, is the only good way. Yep, I remember it. You remember the details better than I do. I remember thinking it would be an amazing high point of his presidency and remember thinking how great it would be to actually be more in charge of my future. It's a shame he let the Democrats and rest of the Boomers in the party bully him into backing down on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 3:28:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: …and would you vote for a “Republican” who refuses to rein in the Welfare State and pledges to never “cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security”? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:15:00 PM EDT
[#11]
I'll never see a dime from that Ponzi scheme and I don't care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:29:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't matter what anyone supports. The programs will self implode at their current pace. We will all be forced to do without. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:32:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Raise the age to start collecting your benefits by a decade or so. I'd enthusiastically vote for a candidate running on such a platform. How fucking noble of you. You basically want people to work til they're dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:34:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm 59 and I support ENDING both of them. Socialist bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:36:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: End welfare first |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 4:37:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pole fail, no option for cutting congressional salaries & eliminating lifetime medical & retirement for them... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2023 7:06:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Social Security would never "self implode" or run out of money if Congress wasn't stealing from the fund for the last 40 years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Doesn't matter what anyone supports. The programs will self implode at their current pace. We will all be forced to do without. Wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:14:01 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Those fuckers don't pay a dime into the system, other than sales tax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: End welfare first If they're paying sales tax using welfare money are they really paying sales tax? Seems kinda like GM paying off their "gov't loan" "ahead of schedule" using stimulus money. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:15:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. It is unfair in the extreme. It's going to happen because the system is going to break otherwise. What you are effectively advocating for is for the system to steal more money it won't pay back. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I skipped because I've heard it all before and no matter the argument, those who paid in (under duress) are deserving of some return on that investment. Talk of "means testing" is utter bullshit as well. How the Hell are you gonna tell those who quite likely paid the most into it that they get nothing? How can that be anything other than unfair in the extreme? But I'll entertain your argument, fire away. I agree. It is unfair in the extreme. It's going to happen because the system is going to break otherwise. What you are effectively advocating for is for the system to steal more money it won't pay back. The absolute 1st thing you do is get ALL those who shouldn't be on it off. That would go a long way to alleviate the most immediate issues. After that's done, utilize the breathing room to either phase it out in some way or if you keep it at all, make it 1- voluntary 2- individual account in your name with a designated beneficiary and most importantly, 3- absolutely untouchable by any elected politician or their appointees. But, after all the money that has been and is still being paid out to those who never paid a dime in and had no connection to anyone that did as specified in the laws, those who have paid into it MUST be made whole. Anything less is grounds for rebellion. ymmv |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:19:45 AM EDT
[#20]
We should have a constitutional amendment regarding taxation.
The only allowable tax is sales tax. The maximum allowable percentage of a transaction that can be taxed is 10%. Federal, State, county, and municipal can all fight amongst themselves on how to divide the 10%. All other taxation will be unlawful. A man can dream. As a business owner, it's amazing how many times the same dollar is taxed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:25:53 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I support ending enrollment in SS and Medicare. IMHO, you cant expect people that have been forced to pay into it for 50 years to walk away empty handed. It's a tax, and has always been a tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:27:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Those fuckers don't pay a dime into the system, other than sales tax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: End welfare first We could and should have a substantive discussion on the definition of "fair" as used in political terms. I predict fireworks in that one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:27:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP is right. We should end all Social Security and Medicare benefits for anyone not part of the Boomer generation. Once the last Boomers have died off the payroll deductions should end. LOL. No. Just end them all at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 10:27:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Yep, cut me a check for all that has been taken from me for the last 35 years and end it.
I'm being very generous not requiring interest on that loan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 12:32:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Give me every dime deposited in my name, price adjusted with interest, and sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 4:48:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Those of you who say "end it now", what do you think the government will be doing with the now surplus $2 trillion a year? I doubt they will return it to the taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 5:12:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those of you who say "end it now", what do you think the government will be doing with the now surplus $2 trillion a year? I doubt they will return it to the taxpayers. "Surplus" lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 5:43:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those of you who say "end it now", what do you think the government will be doing with the now surplus $2 trillion a year? I doubt they will return it to the taxpayers.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 6:36:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We should have a constitutional amendment regarding taxation. The only allowable tax is sales tax. The maximum allowable percentage of a transaction that can be taxed is 10%. Federal, State, county, and municipal can all fight amongst themselves on how to divide the 10%. All other taxation will be unlawful. A man can dream. As a business owner, it's amazing how many times the same dollar is taxed. I don’t know why the liberal politicians wouldn’t support a national sales tax…after all, it would hit the big spenders the hardest…oh, wait…never mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 6:45:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Phase them out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 8:33:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Social Security trust fund reserves are approximately $2,800 Billion. Positive.
The federal government as a whole is approximately $31,600 Billion in debt. In the hole There need to be a lot of government spending cuts but it makes the most sense to start with cutting deficit spending, not a program running a surplus. However, it shouldn't surprise anyone commies want to raid social security and screw over hard working taxpayers to steal their retirement money to pay for commie programs running up the national debt. https://www.usdebtclock.org |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2023 8:55:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Social Security trust fund reserves are approximately $2,800 Billion. Positive. The federal government as a whole is approximately $31,600 Billion in debt. In the hole There need to be a lot of government spending cuts but it makes the most sense to start with cutting deficit spending, not a program running a surplus. However, it shouldn't surprise anyone commies want to raid social security and screw over hard working taxpayers to steal their retirement money to pay for commie programs running up the national debt. https://www.usdebtclock.org The real fun part is Medicare, which accounts for a large chunk of that $31 billion for the deficit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 7:44:37 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why didn't it succeed is the next question. Because it would have left at least half of the country with no retirement income |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 7:52:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Do welfare first.
Until that happens we can't have a reasonable discussion. Going with cutting back being the first step in "ending". You can't just end social programming, without addressing the mindset first. It simply won't happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 8:20:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Funny how the socialists want to cut social security pensions for retired taxpayers but not pensions for retired government workers.
I say raise the benefits age for all government pensions. Tax them all the same. If we need to means test, means test them all. Not just for the taxpayers, but for the government workers carried on the backs of the taxpayers. In any case, it's very revealing that they always have some excuse not to cut off leeches who never contributed. Always some excuse why we can't get rid of food stamps and section 8 housing and medicaid and EITC and foreign aid and all the other handouts. Very revealing indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 8:23:26 AM EDT
[#36]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 8:28:52 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve paid into for almost 30 years at this point. So I’m supposed to pay you guys out then get nothing? Yeah, no. This... no 'effin way that I would be good with "ending it". Out of your mind. They will find the $$. Always find it for everything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 8:32:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why didn't it succeed is the next question. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Believe it or not, Bush II had a fantastic plan that would work to wean the country off of SS. It was incremental, as it should be. Those that were forced to participate, and were nearing the end of their employment years, would , if they wished, continue to contribute the full amount, and would receive their full benefits. I don't remember the age breakdown, but the next youngest by 5-10 years, would be required to contribute about 10% less, and would get 10% less if they chose to take it, but they'd have 10% more, pre tax to invest. The next group down, would only contribute 20% less, get 20% less if they chose to take SS, but they'd have 20% more, pre tax, to invest. That would continue down in the age brackets until new workers, as of his presidential years, didn't have any SS taxes taken out, and there would be no SS for them at retirement, but, they would have all of what they would have paid into it, to invest, pre tax. There was a lot more to it, and I'm remembering basics, and my percentages are off, but that is the type of plan they had, but it would have ended SS over the working life of the youngest workers. So if you were 20, when retirement rolled around at 65, SS would be gone. That sort of plan is the best way. Nobody that was forced to pay into, should be deprived of their benefits, but nobody that doesn't want to, should be forced to pay into it. Weaning down, is the only good way. Why didn't it succeed is the next question. Because it required too much work on the recipient's part to decide how to invest and then the market went in the crapper shortly thereafter allowing the naysayers to shout, see! You would have lost everything under this scheme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 8:46:50 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I support ending enrollment in SS and Medicare. IMHO, you cant expect people that have been forced to pay into it for 50 years to walk away empty handed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:42:26 AM EDT
[#40]
This will sound cold and heartless, but I'm in favor of killing all of the social safety nets that are not military related.
For the record, I did not serve in any of the armed forces and have no access to any military benefits. I believe that we should take care of vets. I favor killing medicare, medicaid, all forms of welfare, and social security now. No one should rely on the government for their retirement benefits. Eliminating government health insurance is the first step to actually reducing medical costs as the insurance world is copying their lead on what they will pay artificially increasing costs. Welfare is just modern slavery that is more socially acceptable. This is my opinion, and yours may be different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:49:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I support ending enrollment in SS and Medicare. IMHO, you cant expect people that have been forced to pay into it for 50 years to walk away empty handed. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 10:00:56 AM EDT
[#42]
We should cut all spending not just SS or Medicare/Caid. Corporate welfare, subsidies, defense spending etc.
The problem is that all of the industries in the US are dependent on huge .gov deficit spending to survive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 10:20:55 AM EDT
[#43]
OP lives around too many Democrats and subscribes to their tactic of only providing loaded answers to polls.
While I don't need SS or any of those social welfare programs (with a high probability that I won't ever need them) I respect those who worked their entire lives contributing to those systems, expecting at least something to come from them. These are millions of people, who, through no fault of their own, would be screwed over if they went away. Honorable, hardworking people who voted for fiscal responsibility and were overridden by influence-peddling congressional filth, don't deserve to be impoverished in the twilight years of their life. It's bad enough that our country has become Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0, celebrating tranny groomers on beer cans. We can't all be Arfcom millionaires with assets spread between stocks and directly-held assets like gold, farmland, bullets, booze, food supplies etc... I'm not taking a big, steamin' shit on those who are not as blessed as I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 11:11:09 AM EDT
[#44]
I’d continue to pay in and receive no benefits if my children would be relieved from participating.
SS and Medicare need to die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 11:30:20 AM EDT
[#45]
This question really comes down to this: Are you entitled to the fruits of another person's labor?
Sentiments along the lines of "I paid into the system for [ x ] years!" shows the phenomenal success of FedGov propaganda for the past 88 years. It was always a Ponzi scheme. Always. Every single "voluntary contribution" has been used to pay for current beneficiaries with a promise to pay future benefits to "contributors." Put another way: Taking from Peter today to pay Paul today and taking from Jane tomorrow to pay Peter tomorrow. There's plenty to discuss regarding the growth of "Social Security" but the key takeaway is that 60% of FedGov spending is dedicated to nothing more than giving away other people's money through programs like SS, SSDI, and welfare. That's long before defense, transportation, or education. Oh, and we're borrowing $1.2 trillion of this year's $5.7 trillion FedGov budget. Even if we disagree on the fundamental philosophy of the idea of "entitlements," the laws of economics will eventually take their toll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 11:33:22 AM EDT
[#46]
Social security is intergenerational theft. I voted yes, but I'm less in favor of cuts, and more in favor of wholesale cancellation. If you're under a certain age, stop paying into it, stop having any expectation of payout.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:39:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This question really comes down to this: Are you entitled to the fruits of another person's labor? If that's the standard, then ethically we need to eliminate all taxes. Not just social security, but all taxes, and at all levels of government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:42:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This question really comes down to this: Are you entitled to the fruits of another person's labor? Sentiments along the lines of "I paid into the system for [ x ] years!" shows the phenomenal success of FedGov propaganda for the past 88 years. It was always a Ponzi scheme. Always. Every single "voluntary contribution" has been used to pay for current beneficiaries with a promise to pay future benefits to "contributors." Put another way: Taking from Peter today to pay Paul today and taking from Jane tomorrow to pay Peter tomorrow. There's plenty to discuss regarding the growth of "Social Security" but the key takeaway is that 60% of FedGov spending is dedicated to nothing more than giving away other people's money through programs like SS, SSDI, and welfare. That's long before defense, transportation, or education. Oh, and we're borrowing $1.2 trillion of this year's $5.7 trillion FedGov budget. Even if we disagree on the fundamental philosophy of the idea of "entitlements," the laws of economics will eventually take their toll. All that borrowing boosted the stock and housing markets and made folks feel rich. Reality is going to kick us all in the ass soon enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:45:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sentiments along the lines of "I paid into the system for [ x ] years!" shows the phenomenal success of FedGov propaganda for the past 88 years. It was always a Ponzi scheme. Always. Every single "voluntary contribution" has been used to pay for current beneficiaries with a promise to pay future benefits to "contributors." Put another way: Taking from Peter today to pay Paul today and taking from Jane tomorrow to pay Peter tomorrow. That's how every government retirement plan works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2023 10:10:33 PM EDT
[#50]
"Gibs me muh munny uh paid into it!"
 Social Security Faces Insolvency In 2033, One Year Sooner Than Previously Expected Meanwhile Gen X DeSantis wants SS/Medicare reforms, Boomer Trump defends the Ponzi schemes. |
|
|
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.
