cjjoyce1

^ What everyone else has said - And keep the paperwork from the person doing the engraving and a pic of it on your wife holding the baby (i.e. provenance will help make this not just any 6694 = added value).

A very good tip I employ myself. Another tip in doing this is to be careful with that razor to not push too far in. If you de-arch the spring even slightly, it won't put the necessary force on the dw and you'll start to have date change issues. Great explanation automatico!

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ This highlights the only reason I am against banning "assault weapons". Cosmetics = confusion. There is a significant difference between assault rifles and assault weapons, yet many people see them as "a rose by any other name".

ohfercryinoutloud!! for the first and only time in this, I'm getting emotional. Sorry. But I get so upset by the assertions that the framers of the past couldn't possibly have envisioned the weapons of today and thus the right to bear arms referred to muskets, muzzleloading rifles, etc. Nobody could have ever dreamed of these things. HORSEHOCKEY! Leonardo daVinci was designing flying machines, parachutes, multiple firing weapons and tanks in the late 1400's Jules Verne wrote 20 Thousand Leagues Under The Sea and Journey to the Center of the Earth in the mid 1800's. In the late 40's early 50's science fiction was popular and kids were playing with "ray guns" today, we actually have laser weapons. For as long as humankind has had conscious thought, I will postulate that he had considered the "what if. . " As long as man has been waging war and killing each other, we have thought about, conceived, contrived, invented, what-have-you new different and superior ways to do so. Entire industries revolve around it. So don't be so ignorant, foolish and arrogant to think that just because hindsight is 20/20 you are smarter, wiser, more clairvoyant into the future than those who came before. Ok. off the soapbox. . .sorry for the rant. This has really been a great discussion and I've enjoyed participating. Sorry if this ruined it for anybody. Flame away

But that's exactly why our laws and ways of government were constructed and instituted in the manner they were. And I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'll say for the third time in this thread, do not think we are smarter or wiser simply because we are in the future. In this very thread we are arguing about protecting the future by our actions today, yet you look at the past and say well, that doesn't apply today. I think you're wrong about that.

I don't recall Scalia coming right out with those words, but in District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008 (which he voted in favor of) he did remark that current law indeed supports an historical tradition of prohibiting unusual or dangerous weapons, you're quite right. BTW, you cut off my quote at a critical point as I don't claim to be a "hide behind the 2nd as my individual rights". My line about amending the constitution to take away rights wasn't meant to be in that vein, but as you state "reduction to the absurd". When in the history of the U.S. has this happened? Right in the very beginning which is why the 2nd Amendment exists, though you're right that we didn't elect King George III. I talked about this several pages back. The Colonists were living in a military/police state.

The U.S. Constitution is not changed all the time. It does contain language for doing so and constitutional amendments do come up from time to time. What you need to see, however, is that the things you bring up weren't written protections in the original document ("fundamental law" as it's referred to) that were later changed to reflect public opinion - Women's suffrage isn't a uniquely American thing either, nor did the United States lead the way for the world. The original framers of the Constitution wrestled with the idea of abolishing slavery when they wrote the original document. Congress prohibited slavery in the newly acquired Northern Territories and by 1800 most states had passed laws prohibiting slavery (once again, the sovereignty of the states prevails). Slavery was ended in 1865 and Women's Suffrage happened in 1920 - 55 years apart. But one can surely argue that these two things do have basis in Individual Rights and Freedoms which many would argue is exactly what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. Wouldn't it be going backwards and almost against the principles of the constitution to use it to take away the rights of individuals? However, I am one who sees the 2nd Amendment as a States Rights issue more than just an individual rights issue, but that's another discussion. It's very easy to live in a cozy world and say, "well. . we don't need those laws anymore. That's never going to happen here again." All I have to do is turn on the news to see people in Northern Africa and the Middle East who are throwing off the shackles of oppressive and tyrannical governments, many of which were not in place that long in an historical sense and who were ushered in under thunderous applause and "nationalist pride". These things do happen. Repeatedly. Throughout history. Throughout the world. Just as I said before, do not think that just because we are in the future we are smarter and wiser than those who came before us. And do not presume to foresee any future without careful, thoughtful, non-emotional consideration.

The acts you speak of are in fact unspeakable, despicable acts. I do not suppose to speak from a platform from which I have no personal, emotional direct link. However, I have listened to many, enlightened and emotionally charged conversations with the man to my left in this pic. (your right side) He is not in step with your thoughts in regard to current times and issues

Precisely. And though I posted it before, I'll just add that The Declaration of Independence wasn't written to address just the people in the Colonies. "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world".

I don't know why I can't fix it, but in my post above, the second "qoute" from JoeyB are my comments.

Yes sir, it sure does. Oh..wait.

Another interesting read http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

Umm. . .isn't this the very reason why you guys rejected the proposal to replace the Queen and Governor General with a Parliamentary appointed president? Because it went against the articles of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?

Not a direct answer to your question, but presented for your review. A quick internet search found these regarding the past http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/ http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm And some interesting graphs and statistics... http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

And therein lies the rub. In the event of a tragedy that stirs peoples emotions to the core, we cry "Something must be done!", and we turn to those in authority, and say "You have to do something! You should make a law so this never happens again!" And those responsible for doing so jump to react and propose measures that on the surface seem to do so and we all say "There! That's what we need!" And yet, over in the corner are a few who say "ummm. . .. excuse me, but not only do I think that really won't help, but that also takes away some of our rights and freedoms". And they're assailed and told "You just don't get it! You're part of the problem!" So laws are passed and freedoms are relinquished. Here in the United States, we had hijacked aircraft used to destroy building, kill non-combatant citizens and strike fear into our hearts. It worked. And as a result, people screamed at our government and said "Protect us!!" And so, the Patriot Act was enacted and the TSA and Department of Homeland Security were created AND we gave carte blanche to the government who did many things in the name of "security" that took away or violated many individual rights. And people shouted "Hurray!" while others went. . 'umm. . ." As Queen Amidala said in Star Wars. . ."so this is how liberty dies. . .with thunderous applause" More than 10 years later, many of even our elected officials who make the laws are admitting "oops, we seemed to have rushed into things" because now that the dust has settled and calmer minds have prevailed, we are looking back and realizing we openly and freely gave up freedoms in the name of "security" that will be very difficult to ever get back. It is very easy to give up our freedoms, but earning them come at great sacrifice and cost. And as JoeyB already answered, Yes, the right to keep and bear arms definitely means no matter what.

Tactics of the time were firing a volley shoulder to shoulder, two men deep. Ever heard of the Boston Massacre? 9 British troops fired a volley on a protesting and harassing crowd in Boston in 1770. 3 were instantly killed, 2 mortally wounded, three others were wounded. 1 volley -9 shots- 8 went down. Sound familiar?

Gentlemen et al. As we continue this lively and spirited debate, I implore all of you - our foreign friends included - to do a modicum of research on Early U.S. History. In the U.S. we used to teach "Civics" in which we all learned about why our government was formed, how it was formed, etc. amongst other things any citizen should know. We stopped teaching this class years ago, for reasons unbeknownst to me. (as an aside, I would venture any new citizen being admitted to the the United States in the last 10 years knows more about this than any born and bred citizen simply by fact that they are required to learn it before taking the oath of citizenship). There have been many things asserted in this debate that are complete and utter falsehoods or misunderstandings of factual events and histories. Additionally, do not make the mistake of applying today's ways and customs to the past. That cannot work. Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that because we are in the future, we are smarter or more wise today than those of the past - Philosophers, Statesmen, Educators, etc.. Case in point, if we were, we'd know exactly how they built the pyramids of Egypt. Let us also be clear about another phenomenon. MANY (not all) countries who today do not have "armed citizens" in the way we think of here in the U.S. at one time in their history did. They were taken away at some point in history through violent change in government, war, military occupation etc. This also nearly happened in the Colonies and as I pointed out earlier, it is crystal clear in The Declaration of Independence that the Colonist WERE living in a police/military state. They knew the only way to protect themselves against a tyrannical or oppressive government were the checks and balances the designed. And, finally, while several of our Founding Fathers became notable Statesmen and Presidents in history, it is more important to remember the other signers of The Declaration of Independence all of whom signed the document knowing full well the treason to Great Britain they were committing and the death warrant they signing. By Gary Hildrith "Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid: Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War. These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor! What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. Perhaps one of the most inspiring examples of "undaunted resolution" was at the Battle of Yorktown. Thomas Nelson, Jr. was returning from Philadelphia to become Governor of Virginia and joined General Washington just outside of Yorktown. He then noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headqurt, but that the patriot's were directing their artillery fire all over the town except for the vicinity of his own beautiful home. Nelson asked why they were not firing in that direction, and the soldiers replied, "Out of respect to you, Sir." Nelson quietly urged General Washington to open fire, and stepping forward to the nearest cannon, aimed at his own house and fired. The other guns joined in, and the Nelson home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis's Long Island home was looted and gutted, his home and properties destroyed. His wife was thrown into a damp dark prison cell without a bed. Health ruined, Mrs. Lewis soon died from the effects of the confinement. The Lewis's son would later die in British captivity, also. "Honest John" Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, when British and Hessian troops invaded New Jersey just months after he signed the Declaration. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid to waste. All winter, and for more than a year, Hart lived in forests and caves, finally returning home to find his wife dead, his children vanished and his farm destroyed. Rebuilding proved too be too great a task. A few weeks later, by the spring of 1779, John Hart was dead from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. New Jersey's Richard Stockton, after rescuing his wife and children from advancing British troops, was betrayed by a loyalist, imprisoned, beaten and nearly starved. He returned an invalid to find his home gutted, and his library and papers burned. He, too, never recovered, dying in 1781 a broken man. William Ellery of Rhode Island, who marveled that he had seen only "undaunted resolution" in the faces of his co-signers, also had his home burned. Only days after Lewis Morris of New York signed the Declaration, British troops ravaged his 2,000-acre estate, butchered his cattle and drove his family off the land. Three of Morris' sons fought the British. When the British seized the New York houses of the wealthy Philip Livingston, he sold off everything else, and gave the money to the Revolution. He died in 1778. Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. went home to South Carolin tight. In the British invasion of the South, Heyward was wounded and all three were captured. As he rotted on a prison ship in St. Augustine, Heyward's plantation was raided, buildings burned, and his wife, who witnessed it all, died. Other Southern signers suffered the same general fate. Among the first to sign had been John Hancock, who wrote in big, bold script so George III "could read my name without spectacles and could now double his reward for 500 pounds for my head." If the cause of the revolution commands it, roared Hancock, "Burn Boston and make John Hancock a beggar!" Here were men who believed in a cause far beyond themselves. I ask you to afford them similar courtesies

Lol, I posted this on my FB during the height of the argument a month ago. "You know, there's a big debate going on. One where you fall generally on one side of the issue or the other. Sure there's a few folks on the in-between, but for the most part, the sides are pretty polarized. And the difficult thing is that if you are on one side of the issue, you will never, ever convince the other side of your being right or convert them to your side of the issue (unless by chance you actually can get one on the other other side to handle or own one, then. . .just maybe). But the one side is always going to say they're stupid. Why would anyone ever want to own one. They can be destructive and dangerous. And unfortunately, there are certain kinds that make these people say no one should ever own one of these - ever! There is absolutely no reason to what-so-ever. They are completely dangerous and lethal. Other countries do not allow you to own one, and if you do, the authorities are authorized to take it on the spot and destroy it and there is nothing you can do about it. And these countries don't have the kinds of problems that we do because you're not allowed to own one. And truthfully, on the other side of the argument are those who would silently (or maybe not) agree with them. Sadly, due to lack of education, there are types that may appear to be harmful, but really aren't but they get labeled as well. Then again, there are some that can be even more so, but because of their docile looks aren't even considered (thank goodness!). They'll also complain you don't need any special training or license to own one. That you can go out just anywhere and get one. Well, depending, that may or may not be true, but generally our freedoms do allow for this. However, you'll never win this type of argument and it's exhausting to engage in it. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, the other will see you as narrow minded, uneducated, liberal/conservative etc. We can only go on knowing that both sides must learn to coexist. Certain owners can be irresponsible, but hold that to the individual, not the whole because in general persons on both sides are intelligent responsible people. And if you'd read this far and think I'm talking about guns, your WRONG. I'm talking about the debate between Cat lovers and Dog lovers and the dilemma of the Staffordshire Terrier (aka Pit Bull). Made ya think tho' didn't I?"

Also, a point of clarification for a few of you. Regulated Militia is most certainly the National Guard which is NOT the Regular Army(/Navy/Air Force) and is under jurisdiction of the States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States Again, this is a key distinction the founding fathers felt extremely necessary; that the sovereignty of the states was equally important to the independence of the nation. It's the principle by which our entire government - legislative and well as judicial, is bound

There is. It's called the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act and it was put into place in 1994, before that the only mass shooting that took place on any camps was Kent State. Works real well Well, there used to be. Many of the perpetrators in these shootings have known histories of mental illness, yet in this country we no longer institutionalize these people before any harm is done. We used to. The reasoning and history for this was presented to the World for it's consideration in The Declaration of Independance. "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. ... He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:" The Colonists WERE living in a military/police state, folks.

With the numbers progressing in the right direction for use as an overlay?

There's two sides to this, too. First is the lughead who buys it solely because it says "Rolex" on it, it's substantial looking, and he thinks it will make others think he oozes money. The other is sort of what happened to me one day at Home Depot. One of the old guys working in there had on a gorgeous 1680 he bought off a strapped for cash buddy "years ago" for a couple hundred. The buddy bought the watch from the PX while serving in Nam. The guy had absolutely no idea what he had until I told him. He actually cried.

I dunno, I've built a lot of frankens using gen dials and crystals and to me the issue falls squarely at the feet of the DWO printing alone. Somewhere along the line, the printing on these has gotten skewed. From about 16 - 6 the numbers get progressively printed toward the inside edge with 25 being the closest. I have 4 overlays in my spare parts bin right now that I can't use because of this. From left to right, they are CubicWorks white, CW champagne, cartel silver already mounted on ETA datewheel, JMB decal applied to brushed back of DWO, and an unknown source. You can clearly see the larger space between the JMB 25 and the rest of them with the cartel being slightly better than the rest. Sorry for the crappy cell phone pic. JMB's is the ONLY one of these that totally lines up correctly with the window every day of the month without finagling. The Cartel is o.k. Only a slight nuisance during certain days, but no dates touch the window edge. Same thing with the last one, but the numbers are too small for my taste. I realize that only two of them are flat top 3 / open 6 and 9, but they are vintage style and do illustrate my point.

Thanks guys! You know, in many ways, this was a pretty easy build compared to others I've done considering there are no datewheel overlays to fuss with and dial spacers and canon pinions to swap, etc. Reworking metal is just time consuming. BTW, I do have to add that the first dial I started with was an Ingod44 dial because DW wasn't up and running at the time. All I can say is don't waste your money. The printing is way off, the paint is extremely fragile, the lume is too and badly applied. DW's new batch is pretty darn good and the same money. And Martin, that's a little creepy for my son. How 'bout "I want a brand new car, champagne, caviar" That line works a bit better for a guy.