"...including getting lice..." and the dysentery that killed more men than all of the bullets put together. :grin:
Giving it the old, 'wink-wink' and describing the seller as stupid or novice, and therefore somehow deserving of being duped, does not excuse the act.
It's pretty clear from that my complaint is with those that intentionally remove manufacturer's marks in order to represent the gun as something it isn't. How you infer from that a bias against contemporary manufacturers making replica hardware is a mystery beyond my comprehension.Defarbing a replica revolver is, in my opinion, an act of deceit. The reenactors often require it because they somehow want to believe that everything everyone uses in the reenactment is truly authentic hardware. So, they require one to intentionally deface the gun by removing any marks that show it's a replica and then pretending that it's not. In the world of antique collecting this is called fraud, but the reenactors say that the since the intent is not to falsely market the guns, it's ok to do it. As if that's never been done. Again, just my opinion. Perhaps I'm too anal.
Is that plain enough? Is there anything about that you don't understand?my complaint is with those that INTENTIONALLY REMOVE MANUFACTURER'S MARKS IN ORDER TO REPRESENT THE GUN AS SOMETHING IT ISN'T
DoubleDeuce 1 said:In California, the altering of certain marks on a firearm and having it in your possession can get you into some hot water.
Enter your email address to join: