freddy333

The NRA has called for off-duty police in schools. While not a perfect solution, it would likely deter most, if not all, of the loonies who commit these types of crimes. Anyone who would attack a school so protected must, by definition, be psychotic. And, with the current laws in America dealing with psychotics (who have not yet killed or harmed anyone), the government does not appear to be motivated to do anything beyond trying to find more politically fashionable words to describe the insane.

Still wearing my '39

Obviously, you have not read my posts (above) regarding the option to amend the Constitution if a majority of Americans disagree with its contents, instructions for which are also written into the Constitution. Considering the state of the rest of the world, I would say the jury is still out on that 1. But in the United States, the Constitution has only been rarely amended. And, judging from the number of people from the rest of the world that continue to come to live in the US, the US must be doing something right.

Ditto. Please debate & keep the personal comments out.

I do not have the exact retail price, but I think it was about $198 or thereabouts. Certainly, below $200.

A good question & yes. Until my 30s, I was fiercely anti-gun. Anyone who knew me back then knew that, were it up to me, I would have confiscate ALL firearms, except those of the military & police. However, a number of things changed my opinion over the years, bringing me to the opposite side. But none more than an incident that occurred during the LA riots of the early 90s. CBS had sent a female reporter & camera crew out to cover the riots, setting up on a hill just outside the actual riot zone. Compounding the problem, by this time, the police (government) had decided to evacuate the city, leaving the innocent citizens to fend for themselves. It was an interesting scene, because they had set up the camera behind a group of soccer mom types (some with their kids) with the reporter, looking visibly shaken herself, asking the women what they were going to do when the riots & fire reached them? From their vantage point, you could see the actual line of smoke & fire splicing through the city below & working its way towards the position of the moms & CBS crew. 1 of the women, crying, said she did not know what they were going to do because she had forced her husband to get rid of his gun. That, for me, was the smoking gun that proved the point.

Wearing my '39 today

DayDate. If you look closely, it is written below Rolex. If you remove the bracelet on most Rolex watches (including this 1), you will see the model & serial number between the lugs. I cannot remember what the dial design is called, but it looks to be 60s vintage.

With all due respect, I have.

No, it was LBJ's attempt to - putting it as generic as I can - level the playing field & redistribute wealth. Of course, depending on which political winds sway you, your mileage may vary.

No, it was the largest federally sponsored set of social welfare programs (implemented by LBJ's administration) since FDR.

No, not sarcasm & there were certainly problems (there always are). But, & you can insert whatever politically unfashionable issue you prefer here, the fact remains that, as far as mass killings with firearms go, something changed in the US culture since the Leave it to Beaver days. I believe it was the unintentioned consequencies of LBJ's Great Society programs that, while well-intentioned, caused a lowering of the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness within society.

Without getting into the accuracy of Clinton's comment, I will say that, in general, I suspect he is correct. However, & I have had this debate among friends for the past 25 or so years, I believe the problem is due more to the continual coarsening of society, not the number/style of guns. Of course, this is a far more complicated subject than can be explained (with complete accuracy) in this context, but I trace the beginning of the end, in great part, on LBJ's 'Great Society' programs of the mid-60s. Prior to that, we lived in Leave it to Beaver land, where doors were routinely left unlocked, women walked the streets in safety & mass shootings were, for the most part, a fluke. After that............well, we have the world we live in today.

Ending the work week wearing my Aryan 'Master

I have only seen the date stamp on 1 leave, not both.

No, Ken, it is the other way around. The Federalist Papers, written after the Constitution was drafted, were, essentially, a sales pitch to the states & people explaining, as Nanuq correctly said, some of the more idiosyncratic ideas cited in the Constitution. Constitutional scholars often return to the Federalist Papers, as well as the private writings of the men who drafted the Constitution, to gain insight into their reasoning behind the tenets defined in it. And, again, if the majority of people feel the Constitution is no longer valid, there is a simple process (outlined within the Constitution itself) to amend it. If there is not a majority, then the Constitution was purposely (&, to my way of thinking, correctly) written to make it difficult for un-constitutional laws to be enacted. And remember, too, that it is not only the president who must defend & protect the Constitution, it is every US citizen's responsibility as well, which is why free people must never have their right to keep & bear arms infringed upon by the government.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

This hackneyed argument is silly & unwarranted. If the majority of people feel this way, then simply amend the Constitution to bring it up-to-date (the Constitution includes instructions for amending it).

'The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.' -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 'The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.' --James Madison, The Federalist Papers The Federalist Papers (& personal writings of the framers of the US Constitution), which were written, separately, by the framers in an effort to 'sell' the Constitution to Congress & the country, are rife with similar comments, which support Madison's original premise. 'Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.' -- Hubert H. Humphrey Democrat Senator (& later Vice President) Humphrey mirrored Madison's (& the framers') original intentions. 'The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ...' -- James Madison Above is Madison's original statement to Congress, which was the basis for the 2nd Amendment. In this context, I think his (& the 2nd Amendment's) intent is clear. 'The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.' -- Adolph Hitler Not to belabor this, but 'being necessary to the security of a free state' is the key to understanding the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' was intended to give citizens the right to protect themselves from the government, not other citizens, as is often (incorrectly) stated. And, further, that this right 'not be infringed' was intended to allow the 'the people' access to whatever arms are needed to defend themselves from the government. It seems to me that the only area that is open to reasonable debate is the definition of 'free'.

You really need a better pic for any type of detailed identification. If the case is engraved with 5500, the dial says only Precision (& no 'SWISS' below 6) & the watch is fitted with a 78350 bracelet (manufactured between 1975 & the mid-2000s), then you have a hodge-podge of parts. It might be a good idea to take it to a watchmaker to see what type of movement is inside.

1st, I apologize for this thread having taken so long to appear. 2nd, we are working to sort out the member upgrade procedure. Unfortunately, at this time, that is all I can tell you. Please know that Admin is working on this & once the system has been updated, it will be announced here.

Correct. Babes should be posted to the Bits, Bytes & Babes forum, not this 1.

If you have the tools/skill to remove the movement from the case & then to remove the hands/dial from the movement, you should be able to see the problem within the keyless works (the set of gears/wheels driven by the stem).