freddy333

Ofrei's 61.701 pushers are what I always use for 62xx non-Oyster Daytonas. Depending on your particular case (all rep/aftermarket case threading varies), you may need to tap the existing hole to make them fit properly or you may need to go 1 step larger in thread size if the existing hole is too large. In my experience, that is just the nature of non-genuine Rolex cases.

Buyer beware, especially with Rolex.

Wearing my DRSD beater today

I normally do not like artificially (over) aged Subs, but this 1 just works. Kudos Slay!

The watch is a beauty, but that sky...............

Is everyone asleep today? Still wearing my beater

Great pic!

I am surprised no one started a Friday Wristies thread today! Still wearing my old beater

Ah, but which one?

Ditto & you might also consider spraying a light coat of matte varnish to the dial to add a bit of subtle texture & tone down the shine.

Still wearing my beater & Congratulations Great Britain! Well Done!

The term 'Rolex' & phrase 'too much' are often mutually exclusive.

Still wearing my beater (DRSD)

Yes, what Nanuq said.

I do not mean to seem flip about such a serious question, but there was an image that appeared on the web shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attack in France that many Americans feel describes the difference between the way Europeans like to deal with these terrorist attacks & the way Americans like to deal with them.

Wow, my deepest sympathies, Nanuq. Did this occur in Alaska?

It varies depending on the state. Most states require that you are not a criminal & lawfully permitted to own a firearm. Some states require some form of training (which is what I do) & background check. A few states permit anyone without a criminal record to own a gun. There are also differences depending on the type of gun. In some states, pistols/handguns require a special handgun permit, but most rifles & shotguns can be purchased over-the-counter after successfully passing a federal NICS background check. The gun laws in the US, which are often written by people with no knowledge or experience with guns, are both complicated & nonsensical. I have been a state certified firearm trainer for a number of years & have trained all sorts of people. One thing I can tell you is that the common belief that people who wear uniforms are more safe with guns than civilians is false. Some cops & military are better shots than I am, some are worse. Similarly, some civilians are better, some worse. But, overall, I find that civilians, who shoot for passion vs people in uniform, who often shoot only to qualify for their jobs, tend to be better & safer shooters. I can also tell you that those cities with weaker gun laws & more law-abiding people - like Plano, Texas, which is a perfect example, because nearly every home has an 'arsenal' & there is little to no crime there - are far safer than cities with much stricter gun laws & more criminals - like Baltimore, Maryland or Chicago, Illinois, both of which are often compared (negatively) to Mogadishu or Mosul & for good reason. The gun is a tool, your finger is the weapon.

Short answer, yes. Americans tend to be different in this aspect than many in other countries. This is why 3 Americans recently rushed & took down a Muslim terrorist on a European train. It is why a civilian in an Oregon shopping mall drew his gun on a mass shooter, which caused the shooter to retreat & shoot himself in the head. Another armed civilian stopped the mass shooting at a barber shop. These things happen all the time in the US, but the media refuses to tell the stories. Recently, while in a Starbucks, I came to the aid of an filthy, inebriated homeless person after he fell off his chair unconscious. Most of the other (likely politically liberal) customers recoiled away from the man as I began checking his condition. It is just the way some Americans are brought up to 'do the right thing' & 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. === For some reason, the RWG forum software keeps combining all of my separate posts=== “The Pink Pistols gives condolences to all family and friends of those killed and injured at Pulse,” Ms. Patton said. “This is exactly the kind of heinous act that justifies our existence. At such a time of tragedy, let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people so much they were ready to kill or injure so many. A human being did this. The human being’s tools are unimportant when compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. “I say again, GUNS did not do this,” she added. “A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.” Pink Pistols urge gays to arm themselves: ‘Guns did not do this, a human being did’ It turns out that, as is usually the case with these people, the danger signs were there for decades, but political correctness kept virtually everyone from reporting or doing anything about them. Orlando shooter Omar Mateen's behavioral issues went as far back as elementary school, where his disruptive conduct and "lack of remorse" as a small boy were noted in his school records.Mateen's school records paint a picture of a troublesome, angry and inappropriate young boy, who struggled both academically and behaviorally. The problems shown in school records continued into high school, where Mateen was suspended from school nearly 50 days. As a young man, coworkers described Mateen as angry and said he "could do nothing right in his father's eyes." Orlando shooter's early school records note he "lacked remorse"

Wearing my well-beaten beater

Spot on, Nanuq. I began as a young Cub Scout myself back during a time when we would walk to school with our rifles over our shoulder & no one batted an eye. Of course, this was at a time when the idea of using that rifle to harm other people was preposterous & absurd. It may be time to rethink where we are today & consider setting our cultural clocks back a bit.

Nanuq, I think Stormtrooper4's point is valid, to a degree. If there could be a successful universal prohibition on guns in America, that would eliminate the problem. But it would cause another. Without guns, how does the 95 pound woman defend herself from the 250 pound, knife-wielding drug-addled attacker? Without guns, how does the 5'4" gay man defend himself from 3 ruffians who attack him with fists? How do unarmed innocent office workers gathering for a birthday celebration in a local hotel protect themselves from 2 terrorists that attack them with rifles? Remember, we tried prohibition with alcohol (& again with our 40 year-long 'War on Drugs') & the result was both alot more alcohol & alot more crime, not to mention alot more illegal guns in criminal hands. And with 300,000,000+ guns already in the US, I do not see prohibition as being a reasonable option. Add the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits confiscation & it just is not going to happen. The problem, as Nanuq indicated, is with society itself. I believe there is something within portions of the culture that has eaten away at the core principals of truth, honesty & fairness & people, not just in the US, seem to have forgotten how to treat each other with respect. At the same time, parts of Islam, at war with itself, has once again turned its expansionist sights towards the west, mostly, I believe, due to envy. But also because it fears the very modern world we so crave. I believe we are heading for a clash of civilizations of historic proportions &, whether we like it or not, we in the west must need to accept the fact that Islam has been at war with us for decades & get in the game before we lose it.

Interesting & thank you for posting that. It would also be helpful for people to know the difference between fully-automatic machine-guns or 'assault rifles' & semi-automatic sporting rifles. Watch this veteran California police officer demonstrate the difference -

Valid points except where you cited 'need' as a deciding factor. Americans have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does the US Constitution say you have rights only where 1 can demonstrate a need that someone else agrees with. Personally, although I have experience with them, I am not a fan of automatic weapons, but I do grant that they are fun toys. So I am also willing to grant those who enjoy (& can afford the expensive ammo) the right to enjoy their toys in a lawful manner as long as their enjoyment does not directly harm me. Considering there are around 200,000 machine guns in civilian hands in the US & I am not aware of a single crime that has been committed using any of those legally owned firearms since 1934. Therefore, while there are any number of theoretical issues 1 can suggest, in practice, there just have not been any demonstrated danger to the public from the civilian ownership of lawfully owned & operated automatic weapons. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it. That, I believe is the premise of the US Bill of Rights. The idea that you are free to swing your arm around all you want as long as it does not hit me in the nose. Once that happens, it is the government's responsibility to get involved. But not before then. At least, that is my understanding. Sorry, but what is my approach to what?

I agree with your statement, but I would disagree with the majority's conclusion. And so does Ronald Noble, Secretary General of Interpol. "Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed." "For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'" After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'