JoeyB

You said "any". That's what I addressed. Not "all". I stated several pages ago that I do not believe that assault weapons and large capacity magazines are needed by civilians.

The only reason need be stated is the 2nd Amendment. We hold our Freedom, our Liberty and our Rights as sacred. We believe that every soldier who died in service of this country paid the ultimate price for our Rights, and every soldier who served as having defended our Rights. We refuse to give up any of our Rights because history teaches the 'slippery slope'. And the fact is that in having that view we now have more rights than ever before in our history. WE, the People of the United States of America will not give up our Rights.

Here is a quote from a movie that I believe illustrates what the United States of America is all about: “America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” In my country you can say what you want, but so can your opponent. This is not only the way it is, it is what we demand. In the recent election the President's opponent said so many things that simply were not true. The People had to decide who they believed and who they did not believe. This is what we are about. In court it is the Law for a defense attorney to defend his client to the best of his ability, even if he believes or knows his client is guilty. If he doesn't, if the attorney misses one thing, the attorney answers charges, his client gets a retrial or freed. As I've said, the things said and done to President Obama about his name, his birth, his heritage, his school transcripts, all of it, are past being disgusting. Most Americans view it as stupid. But it's not illegal. The People determine that it's just a bunch of dummies. I'd guess most Americans don't know how our Nation works either, and share your concerns. But for more than 236 years our way works. It doesn't work fast, it doesn't work perfect, but it does work the way we choose for it to work. It even works when Americans don't know it is working. It is the nature of what our Founders envisioned and built. Feinstein and her supporters will be challenged, as you linked to. That is a good thing. It means that she will have to be certain of what she brings to congress for it to survive all the coming attacks. Then, if passed it goes to the Senate for the same scrutiny. If it passes there and if the President signs it into Law it still won't be done just yet. Someone like Jones can and will challenge it in court, and all the way to the Supreme Court. They will rule one way or the other, and we will live under their decision until someone else challenges it and gets it through all the courts again to the Supreme Court. There is no limit to the challenges. Will all that take place? Who knows, but it can. I think Feinstein's group will bring a good bill in banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines, it will pass through quickly and be signed by the President. The People are for it. I am for it. The Politicians will take the 'easy way' passing something that was a law previously. I do not think it will solve the issue.

That's not where the law will be made or lost.

Why? It doesn't bother me or Feinstein. Extremist conservative talk show hosts are fueling the opposition to do silly things like this. Most Americans find it rather funny - except when we see a nut like Jones in his rant knowing he has guns. Keep in mind that the U.S. practices our freedom of speech more now than ever before, and we surely [censored] of a monarch or two in the past with it. But just because someone says something doesn't mean it is the law, or that it will change anything. Look at all the rhetoric about our President's birth certificate and right to be president. We do have freedom here, and that includes the freedom to be just as stupid as anyone cares to be. Opposition is part of the process. With 315 million people we do have almost as many opinions and points of view. The last poll I saw yesterday showed that 67% of those polled favor restricting assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Feinstein has support in Congress, is a real politician, and will get the bill to the floor when it's ready. That's what to pay attention to. The House of Representatives is Republican led, conservatives. They've taken quite a beating of late for having gone so far to the right. A floor vote would tell the public how each voted. If your congressman votes against when your district is 67% for, then he has a problem keeping his job. The floor vote, the politics of holding the representative responsible to his constituents and public opinion is the event to watch. The rest is is for radio ratings, TV ratings, web site hits, blog hits, and to bother people.

We will never stop it. We can drastically reduce the gun violence, and that is what we are doing. It will not happen overnight, nor in a month. Knee-jerk reactions make knee-jerk laws. It will take time and most importantly, Thought. The United States of America certainly has a Constitution, yours is based on ours, and Amendments. We say our Constitution is a 'living, breathing document of government' because we can amend it as we see need to.

As posted earlier in this thread, that is the discussion in congress right now. We had a 10 year ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines enacted under President Clinton. It was allowed to expire under President Bush. There is opposition from the conservatives in congress, but due to the precedence set, it is expected to become law again after a bit of politics.

I addressed each point you attempted. You did not attempt a discussion. You didn't bother the read the replies in the 8+ pages. And I did not appreciate your condescending manner, nor your assertion that you and your country are reasonable and me and mine are not. Who are you to talk down to me? You continue your condescending manner, but make no attempt to discuss anything. That's nice. We have the same laws in the U.S. Maybe you copied them from us. What makes you think that "sensible and reasonable" are not in that statement? The role of government in the United Sates of America is: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This is what we chose for ourselves, and continue to choose for ourselves. We didn't tell you or your people what the role of your government should be. However, in light of your continued condescending manner I'd suggest what you can do with your sand. Studies made show that those states who have enacted conceal/carry laws have had gun crimes greatly reduced.

That may work for you. It will not work for us. We accept it for you. It was your choice. We do not accept it for us. That is our choice. You don't have to have a gun as a deterrent. There is no law in the U.S. that makes anyone own a gun. Many here do not own guns. Yes. The Revolutionary War, not the Civil War. Yes. If I wanted to live in England or Australia I would. No. If you lived here you would have the choice. The NRA can say anything they like, they don't scare many at all. Most Americans don't listen. It's when the media talks about banning guns that we see record numbers of gun sales. . We are having that discussion. Nope, but then no one here is saying that. All that is being discussed and considered. Whatever a gun is designed for, it will kill people. Yes, it does. The 2nd Amendment is right for us. The true definition of Liberty and Freedom is that of making our own decisions for ourselves. We do that quite well, thank you.

Thanks. I will try another binder.

RA, yes, we both use the water based on the vintage dials that we do, and that is water based. This is a Superlumanova I want to do my 16710 with, after I practice a bit. The binder has thickened in the bottle, and I took a bit and tried different things to thin it, but nothing yet. Mike, I'll give lacquer thinner a try. Thanks.

Thank you. It was actually 38 years, I made a typo, though it wasn't as if I did it for free... All said and done, it was my pleasure.

Does anyone know what is used for the binder/glue? I need to thin it out and have tried naptha and acetone but neither work. It is the Anchor Luminous kit and doesn't say anywhere what they use. Any ideas?

They'll get even. Nanuq

I grew up in the city of Chicago in the 1960s. The "long, hot summer" every summer meant riots, burning city blocks, curfews for adults at 6 P.M. We knew the neighborhoods we could go to, and the ones we couldn't. I was a member of a 'gang', we hung out on a corner. The big gangs, the well known gangs were black and white and Latino. The Taylor Street Dukes, The Blackstone Rangers (went on to become the Black P-Stone Nation), The Latin Kings, Vice Lords, so many other smaller ones like mine. We all carried weapons. What has changed is that today I can walk through any neighborhood without being bothered by the gangs. The gangs still kill. But they stay to themselves now. Their priority is making money. Their violence is directed at those who they do business with or compete with. It's much like the gangs of the early 1900s. The Capone gang, O'Brien Gang, Italian gangs, Polish gangs, Irish gangs, German gangs. All from their respective ghettos. The first time I read about the police complaining about being out-gunned was during Prohibition when the Canadian bootleggers had Thompson Submachine guns and sold them to the American bootleggers. The Thompson was an assault weapon too. Invented in 1919. It gained notoriety being used in drive-by shootings. Same as in New York. Philadelphia. Detroit. Boston. Most every major city. Once one looks past the color, it really hasn't changed.

Agreed. In a limited area a shotgun would be far more effective, particularly in the hand of an amateur. Even a trained combat experienced soldier who had not trained for any extended period would be more effective with a shotgun, and he should know it. In 1775 the 'assault weapon' was a musket with a fixed bayonet. Our militia literally ran from the battlefield, dropped and discarded their weapons and ran, when the Brits fixed bayonets. Why? The same reasons as today. Assault weapons are meant for one thing, and one thing only. To kill multiple people. And it doesn't matter if it's on a battlefield or in a school, or what the assault weapon is, it will do it's job. In fact, the bayonet in the hand of the 18th century Brit soldier was more deadly than assault weapons today because it was more accurately deployed and due to the proximity to target. I am a "staunch gun lover" by your usage, and I have said in this thread just that. I have no issue with being registered, proving training, having background check, and I believe we should ban assault weapons and high volume magazines. I do not believe that the ordinary citizen needs these assault weapons any more than they did in 1775. As our Founders learned then, if an insurrection were to become necessary, the weapons at hand can attain the weapons needed for an insurgency. That's why insurgencies have a habit of winning. However, that will not stop the violence. The violence is not less in other advanced nations because of banning guns. The violence is less in those places that recognize and treat people that are ill. Anyone, including myself, can be totally sane today, pass all the checks, spend a lifetime of stability, and snap tomorrow. The warning signs are ignored here, or excused or simply not recognized. After 39 years in the military I can honestly say that I have served with, and commanded, many people who should never be allowed to be near a slingshot, let alone a firearm. If I can recognize that in someone, certainly our medical people can, and better than I. The answer to the issue in the U.S. is not easy. But something must be done. A knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy gets knee-jerk results. We need thoughtful answers, genius ideas in order to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, and stop the gun violence here. And that will cost us money. And that will be a very tough sell to about half of our Nation.

Well done.

That is what I would do. You'll find out if you are missing a part through the tutorial. If you are like me it will be on the floor behind something that is impossible for it to have gotten to. I swear some of the springy parts have broken the sound barrier when they went flying. Fortunately my Lady is a surgical nurse, and they have to find tiny needles, etc. on the floor to make their count. She finds my parts every time and I get to watch her... With experience the keyless works on the ETA is a quick and easy fix. First timers should just take their time and follow the tut carefully. It's a good one.

As dbane said, it's likely the keyless works which is what holds the stem in position and in the watch. If the stem was broken in the watch it would still take the same repair/resetting of the keyless works but with a new stem.Broken stems happen, but resetting the keyless works is far more common. There are tutorials on this site for resetting the keyless works. After spending $25usd at the watchmaker a few times I tried it. It was the first movement repair I ever did and using th step by step it wasn't hard at all. Take a pic of your stem and your movement and post it so we can see what movement you have and what your problem might be.

Making a bomb is easier than getting a gun in the U.S. or anywhere else. We believe what the factual statistics tell us. Those states that have enacted conceal-carry laws have experienced a drop in violent crime. That must be thoroughly studied. But to go over the top with silly scenarios doesn't accomplish a thing. I'm not in support of every person armed, nor do I support assault weapons and high capacity clips. I do not oppose training, registration and background checks. We had a ban on assault weapons that lasted 10 years enacted by President Clinton and allowed to expire by President Bush. I think most Americans would have no issue with banning assault weapons again, this time permanently. I also think that the high capacity clips can be banned with little opposition. As I understand it, such a ban is about to be brought to congress for the Speaker to bring to the floor. This is where the first hurdle will be, if the Speaker allows it to the floor. Will all that stop the violence? I don't think so. But it might reduce the violence.

The fact that you make such assumptions is absurd. The discussions are taking place in the U.S. because the killings did rip our hearts out. But we choose to not make the wrong decision in knee-jerk fashion. And most Americans believe that the decision made for you may well be the right one for you, but is not the right decision for us. We will make the right decision for us. Thank GOD I'm an American.

I understand what you are saying, and that you know we can't do that. Laws do not stop "sick" people from doing violent crime. And then we get into who determines who is "sick" or not, violent enough to someday stage a mass killing or not. We don't have, and I'm not sure we want, thought police. It is a very difficult problem not easily solved at all. But one thing is certain, it is people that are the problem, obviously.

I'd suggest you read it a few times.

No sir, Police, Army Navy are not regulated militias. They are manned by professionals. The point, and subject are obviously not moot. While there is someone somewhere that wants to ban all, some, certain and/or special weapons, the subject in the U.S. by the majority is not about banning semi-automatic weapons. The subject is controlling firearms. Few want semi automatics banned or confiscated. High volume clips and assault weapons are the most discussed right now.

That is the passage. "necessary to the security of a free state". From the Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. I believe this is what the 2nd Amendment is in reference to.