To: lawnguy; pandoraou812; Daffynition; barker; ferri; gjeiii; genefromjersey; texas booster; ...
2 posted on
11/17/2014 6:15:50 PM PST by
SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Thank you.
although I dont often traverse the sort of tundra where such stuff might occur one never knows.
Thanks again.
3 posted on
11/17/2014 6:16:27 PM PST by
MeshugeMikey
("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
I dunno—an online registry would tell thieves who has what.
4 posted on
11/17/2014 6:18:13 PM PST by
exit82
("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
5 posted on
11/17/2014 7:08:22 PM PST by
fulltlt
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Please correct me if I read the article wrong, but it appears that the “proof of ownership” the website is looking for is just a picture of the lens with the serial number visible. Problem is, what’s to stop the thief from registering the lens as if it’s legit if the owner hasn’t yet done so? Nothing, really. So a thief could in fact use this sort of service to make a stolen item look legit to buyers.
To: SWAMPSNIPER
When I take the fancy Nikon, I carry a $3k camera and usually $3k in lenses. I also carry a Sig P-229 in .40 with two extra 14 round mags. Just seems prudent.
7 posted on
11/17/2014 7:49:38 PM PST by
glock rocks
(Whenever I find myself in a conundrum, I ask myself: What would Elvis do?)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Thanks. Will have to check this out.
8 posted on
11/18/2014 3:23:28 AM PST by
Islander7
(There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson