tomhorn

http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/155137-ap-rep-onhardcore-pawn-tv-show/

Depends on the vintage. Either 78350 or 7835 bracelet. 357, 557 or 562 endlinks would work.

Sure, just what we need ... more taxes to go along with the President's plan to spend half a billion dollars on new regulations (more government) when the country needs to be spending less money and reducing the size of government.

Saw the show ... no way the 'customer' was 'had' when he bought them himself. The look on his face and the stuttering in his speech were a clear sign he was trying to pass a rep off as a gen and got busted. The only other possibility is that it was all staged, but I'm not sure if I were a pawnbroker that I'd want to admit that one got by me. I couldn't believe he didn't have someone open the caseback to check the movement before taking it in. The funny part is the guy came back with a Rolex box. Although they never showed the watch, when Les was looking it up on the website he was still on the AP page ...

And so it begins .... http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3 And the truth finally comes out ... It's all about political gain. Has nothing to do with whether it's the right thing to do, or even the legal thing to do (from a Constitutional standpoint). The Congress knows they are never going to get it passed, because everyone is afraid of what happens to their jobs come the next election. They just want to throw it all on Obama's head. He's never running for anything again so it doesn't matter. Hypocrites ... and these are all members of his own party. And how nice of the President to skip naming a permanent head of the ATF in all of this ....

So at least we agree on something ....

BINGO! Someone finally got it. Don't like gun ownership, semi-automatic weapons, large clips, 'assault rifles' ... fine. Change the Constitution. As many have said it was meant to be a living and breathing document, and there were specific procedures established to do it. Do that, and I'll be totally fine with it. Ignore the Constitution, and I'll take a stand against it, even if it doesn't affect me, or if I could really care less about what's being proposed. I'm sure there are a lot of gun loving, NRA members and other folks who oppose what's being contemplated because of the guns. For me, I will never own a gun or a clip that is currently being contemplated for banning. That's not what this is about for me. This is a Constitutional issue, plain and simple. Too many people are trying to rationalize it away because some children were tragically killed, wounded, and/or mentally traumitized by a crazy person. I understand, and empathize. It all seems pretty easy, an 'assault weapon' was used, people were killed. Let's just ban them so this kind of thing will never happen again. It's easy. BUT ... to use your examples, what if the 'majority' decided tomorrow that women should no longer be able to vote, or that it was acceptable to keep slaves? Would it be OK for the Congress to just pass a law, or for the President to sign an executive order reversing those Amendments? I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It cannot be OK to handle one part of the Constitution one way, and another part of it differently. And you can't just use the excuse 'well society would never believe those things are OK anymore anyway' to dismiss the premise. No one can predict what will happen in the future. Exactly.

KB ... to answer your question, no I am not expecting to have to join a revolution. It will mainly be a symbolic personal politcal protest. As for your saying a valid justification hasn't been given, well I would respectfully disagree. It might not meet your definition of 'valid' but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Amendment includes the words 'shall not be infringed'. On it's face, that means the US Government isn't supposed to do anything that restricts in any way a citizens right to own arms. Forget restricting certain types of arms, even requiring registration, background checks, etc. in theory falls outside that. In 2008 the SCOTUS (in the Heller case) defined 'arms' with regards to 2nd Amendment as 'not specifically designed for military use, and were not deployed in a military capacity'. So in order to ban the types of guns and magazines the government is talking about banning now, it is likely going to have to successfully argue that the guns and/or magazines were specifically designed for military use. IANAL, but I'm not sure they can ultimately do that. No doubt the SCOTUS will have to take it up at some point as I have no doubt the NRA will file a lawsuit the second any action is taken. Now that's completely different from a 'moral' or 'logical' justification. Morally and logically I don't have an issue with banning the things being discussed. Ethically I do, because our Constitution says the government can't.

Yes, I was generally apathetic about guns until now. Shot some as a kid (22's and small shotgun). Never felt the need to own one, nor really wanted to. Am in the process of buying one now because I am starting to fear my government and how its current policies (if allowed to come to fruition) will affect society in the future. Not just what may happen regarding the 2nd Amendment, but the general drift toward socialism. I'm also looking at job opportunities in other countries. And no, owning a gun will not make me feel good, or 'more of a man'. It will actually make me feel less powerful that I have to own one. I will pray every day that I never have to point it at anything but a target at a gun range for practice. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's not my reason. I suspect that most folks that buy guns for self defense feel exactly the same way. With regard to the Chicago discussion. I read a facinating book not too long ago. It's called 'Gang Leader for a Day'. http://www.amazon.com/Gang-Leader-Day-Sociologist-Streets/dp/014311493X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358088504&sr=1-1&keywords=gang+leader+for+a+day For a middle aged white guy who has lived a middle class life, it was a very enlightening look at a world I have (obviously) been sheltered from.

Yes, the Confederate States started the war ... only because the United States told them it was illegal to succeed. The United States could have allowed it and no war would have taken place. They didn't. What you don't seem to grasp is the correlation between that and the 2nd Amendment, which was put in place specifically to allow the people to keep and bear arms not only to protect the Union, but also so that 'the people' could oppose what they thought was an oppressive government. Exactly what the Confederates wanted to do. They started peacefully by succession, and when the United States told them they couldn't, they rose up against what they believed to be an oppressive government. If the United States had taken away all of their 'arms' they wouldn't have been able to oppose the government. The 2nd Amendment didn't cause the war, but having it allowed the Confederacy to fight for what they believed in. If you honestly think the Vice President is on a mission to find out 'what the people want' I've got a bridge to sell you. This is nothing more than a dog an pony show to set up the President to push for what he wants. Do you honestly think Joe Biden is going to come out and say 'I'm sorry boss, the people don't want any gun restrictions'? If the 'people' really want gun control, then they can work to change the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't (or shouldn't), I'm just saying there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. I'm no fan of the NRA, but did you read their quote after the task force met? "We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners ..." Yes, the Founding Fathers created the Constitution as a living and breathing document that was intended to be changed ... but only by using a very specific process. Unfortunately, the Congress and the President (not speaking about just the current ones, mind you) have decided many times throughout history to look the other way and just do things that should have required changing the Constitution. I'm very familiar with the 10th Amendment. Show me where in the Constitution that the United States Goverment can require its citizens to purchase a consumer product. Show me where it says the United States is allowed to collect data about every penny its citizens spend. Show me where the Constitution allows the government to collect information about every location its citizens travel to (and I'm not talking about crossing borders, I'm talking about going down to the corner store), or what they watch on television and read on the internet. Where is it written that the government is supposed to bail out private industries, or individual companies. These are but some of the examples of the way our government violates the Constitution on a regular basis. By all means, bury your head in the sand if you want. I'd love to sue, but I have neither the time, nor the money to take on that fight. Nor do most citizens, which is why the government keeps on going. PS ... thanks to JoeyB and Nanuq whose responses came in while I was drafting this.

You obviously have a different view of the current state of the United States. We must have had different History and Civics teachers. With regards to the Civil War, it was started because the United States believed that the South's succession was illegal. There was even a meeting in 1861 that tried to reach a compromise and avert the War. If the United State had said, it was OK for the Southern States to succeed, there wouldn't have been a war. The war was the Southern State's exercising their rights to challenge the United States government. No way they would have been able to contemplate that if the United States government had taken their arms. When the President signs an executive order to restrict guns, it is NOT beeing done with our participation and approval ... other than slightly more than half the people who voted elected him. Letting Congress pass a law, or Amending the Constitution on the other hand gives 'participation and approval of the people' a lot more weight. The Founding Fathers believed that the Federal government should be as small as possible and should do as little as possible. We were formed as a union of States. Big difference in thought process. Essentially they wanted the Federal government to defend the Union and only do things it wasn't practical (or wise) for the States to do themselves. They would never have envisioned the size and scope of the current Federal Government. Our current leaders violate the 10th Amendment more often than anyone can possibly keep up with, and don't even get me started about the trampling of our right to privacy. If you knew all the data the government collected about you it would scare you.

I've read all of this. Very passionate arguments on both sides. For the record, I do not own currently a gun, nor have I ever owned one. To the non US citizen members, I can understand where you are coming from. The lack of logic in 'needing' to own weapons (whether you think any weapon, or just assault weapons) is probably a perfectly natural thing for you to believe based on the evolution of your society, how you were raised, and the overall experiences in your life. Here in the US (for better or worse), we were raised differently. Our country's history is different. You can't equate one to the other with any measure of statistics, or other arguments. To the US citizens who believe in gun control, I will respectfully disagree with you as well, but not because of statistics, or school shootings, or any other 'perfectly logical' argument. Perhaps you upbringing or circumstances haven't put you in a situation where needing a gun was essential, or you've just come to that conclusion through things you've read or heard. I fell into that category ... but I have changed my mind for one reason. It took awhile for me to decide enough is enough. I am now going to buy a gun on principle alone. The US government has been tranpling on the Constitution and its Amendments for quite some time. This might be the issue that finally makes others stop and think about that too. I certainly hope so, It has for me. Purely out of protest I will buy a gun, not because I need one, but because the Constitution says I can and I am tired of the government trampling on my Rights (with a capital R). As many have said, our country was created by overthrowing what our founding fathers believed to be a tyranical ruler. The 2nd Amendment was specifically designed to allow for the ability of common men to band together and do it again, if the people believed the new government also got out of control. The Civil War in our country was a prime example of the intent of 2nd Amendment in action. The 'problem' with banning 'some' weapons, is that the 'person' deciding what weapons to ban will be .... wait for it ... the government. That entity which according to our founding fathers was supposed to be kept in check (I believe as a last resort, BTW) by the ability of the people to keep and bear arms. Personally, I think ALL weapons should be available, despite my having no desire (right now) to own anything more than a handgun. I do want everything to be available in case I change my mind, or circumstances dictate that I need to own more than a handgun (like becomming Nanuq's next door neighbor). I had a friend who is a lawyer tell me that the Constitution has to protect equally. Even the people you disagree with, or the actions you might think are wrong (like burning a flag). He also told me the Constitution was a living document, and was designed to be changed when the people deemed it was needed. IF the people of the United States want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then (and only then) come after the guns. Until then ... the Constitution says we can own 'arms' and therefore we should be allowed to do so. It's really as simple an argument as that. Personally I think if the founding fathers were dropped into the US today they would be appalled at what the federal government has become. They'd probably start another revolution just because we obviously didn't get it the first time.

This guy at VRF showed two service dials at 300 Euro. I contacted him a couple of times and he never had another one. http://www.network54.com/Forum/207673/message/1339059203/FS+many+rolex+dials That's about the best deal I have seen on a gen dial recently. But hey, you could go for this one instead .... http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLEX-EXPLORER-dial-for-1016-or-5504-come-with-his-hands-same-patina-/150959605268?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item2325e4c614

Finding a good 1016 dial is the toughest part of the build. I have been looking myself for some time as well. Not happy with the price, but the ND Trading dials look the best of what I have seen. recently.

Is there some reason the trusted dealers here aren't good enough to buy from?

I'm in ... let's get the rest of the way there people!

His profile said France, so I thought you might be able to help ...

^^ what he said ... Here is raffles-time's eBay store http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_sop=15&_ssn=raffles-time&rt=nc And Clark's http://www.ebay.com/sch/merchant/nostalgia-2000_W0QQ_nkwZQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZQQ_mdoZ

http://www.rwgforum.net/forum/280-tc-submariner/

http://www.rwg.cc/forum/263-supermirrors/ Still there for me too.

Most people just go with the Clark's Mercedes hands. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hands-ETA-2824-2-White-For-Rolex-Tudor-Submariner-/230830457522?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35be9142b2 A better option would be gen Tudor hands if you can find them.

PBdad built my 16014, but he's CONUS. Valty builds a lot of frankens ... maybe reach out to him for a build source closer to home?

I love this forum .... what starts off as a question about finding someone to drill lug holes evolves into a tutorial from one of the members. Not that I'll ever do it myself, but great info automatico!

There aren't any accurate reps of the 7 Days. Subdial spacing is way off and the date is sunken. They are beautiful watches in their own right, just not accurate reps. Especially the gray dial. http://www.puretime.co/product/portuguese-automatic-ss-grey-dial/

I am getting this too in Firefox 17.