lloyd

OMG!!!

Ok, we all get it NOW, a Usa dude would rather make love to a gun insted of a woman!

Thank you god, for me being Europen!

If you can not win with facts, resort to insults.

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

 

 

Ken

You do realize that Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US? They have registration, permits, and bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

When people die in cars the people demand regulations to curb the deaths and driving is not only one of the most regulated past times we have and it continues to be regulated.

 

When they die in air disasters we demand strict safety laws, despite flying be much safer than driving.

 

But the list is endless, Tobacco and Alcohol (at least here in Australia) are targeted by a great deal of advertising and excise taxes, obesity is the new tobacco being tackled by our government.

 

Whatever you do travelling, swimming, hiking, hang gliding...if people can die the government or the people (usually both) have rules, advise and watchdog groups to try and save lives and it's the same all over the world.

 

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

 

Glad I'm an Aussie.

 

I also know now that it is an overwhelming job to get American gun advocates to even consider, to even peek over the fence, of the opposing argument. Remember many on my side of the fence know the alternative, in the case of Aussies we have been there and know we made the right decision.

 

With that I'm bailing out, what drives me to try and get the message across is the utter gut wrenching sadness I feel when I think of those little kids gunned down in Sandy Hook. The fact that this atrocity didn't rip the heart out of the gun ownership stance, the fact that this thread is here a mere few weeks after the shooting tells me that Americans have become far to desensitised to truly grieve and to many their first reaction is defense.

 

Ken

Who says it did not rip at our hearts? You have to realize that a nut will find a way to kill.

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.^{[Note 1]} Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.^["

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster}

^{38 kids with a bomb.}

^{Americas crime rate is dropping. It is the lowest since 1964. An isolated incidence does not call for disarming the millions of law abiding citizens. How many millions of times a year do guns save lives?}

^{From a government study.}

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of

2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994

telephone survey conducted by Florida State

University professors Gary Kleck and Mark

Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked

up by the press and now appears regularly in

newspaper articles, letters to the editor,

editorials, and even Congressional Research Service

briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and

Gertz instrument and provides a basis for

replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents

in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the

past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even

if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone

else, or for the protection of property at home,

work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative

were followed with "How many different times did

you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect

yourself or property in the past 12 months?"

Negative answers to the first DGU question were

followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend

yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).

Each respondent who answered yes to either of these

DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional

questions concerning the most recent defensive gun

use in which the respondent was involved, including

the respondent's actions with the gun, the location

and other circumstances of the incident, and the

respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use

in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the

sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6

percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million

adults. Almost half of these respondents reported

multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis

for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23

million. This surprising figure is caused in part

by a few respondents reporting large numbers of

defensive gun uses during the year; for example,

one woman reported 52!

You do not have to shot someone to be saved by your gun.

I would really want to protect them, I don't know what it would be like to live through something like that. Of course, I'm also not sure how I would feel if my son or daughter were killed by a gun that I was keeping in my house for protection. Accidental shootings happen a lot, see the list of links I posted yesterday and for me that is a far more real danger. This is not a problem with no answer, it's a problem that we refuse to address. We make constant justifications for owning guns that will only be used for target practice or to accidentally shoot our neighbours kid. Justification for guns that have the potential to be used in mass murders, guns that are only slightly modified versions of military weapons. This isn't a movie and the bad guys aren't running rampant with guns, but you better believe that when someone decides they want to do something bad with a gun, they have all the access they could dream of, all because someone, clouded in their own cognitive dissonance, justified it.  

When some one decides to do something bad, they do not need a gun. They can use an airliner, or car bomb or even a sword

The worst mass school killining in America happened in 1927 with the nut using bombs.

A gallon of gas can work too. This nut killed 87 people.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Proper storage and gun safety education can prevent accidents.

On a different note, I read through the Harvard paper and found it very interesting. And basically what it asserts is that there is no correlation between gun control and murder - either way. But the one thing that it does scream out is that 90% of gun deaths are by bad people with prior violent pasts. So I say, kill or exile all the violent people and the violence will be gone. I bet if you enacted a law which says two strikes and you are excommunicated, killed or whatever would have a larger impact than any gun control on violent crime. Don't really mean it as that is too draconian but in my heart of hearts I know that getting rid of violent people is the only way to meaningfully reduce violent crime.

And now we reach the heart of the problem, people.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

_{"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))}

_{"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))}

_{"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)}

The Federalist #46

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

What everyone keeps missing about the crime rate in America is that with all the gun sales, it is dropping like a rock. The press is breeding hysteria and people are falling for it.

"The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.

“We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years,” says Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s “American Homicide,” a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States. “The rate oscillates between about 5 and 9 [per 100,000], sometimes a little higher or lower, and we’re right at the bottom end of that oscillation.”

Last year’s rate was the lowest of any year since 1963, when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Don’t relax quite yet: Americans still kill one another at a much higher rate than do citizens of other wealthy nations.

“By international standards, we never really get to ‘low,’ ” Roth says.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control

Let's stick to facts not media induced hysteria.

Do you anti-gunners think that the politicians should have armed guards while the rest of the population is unarmed?

I bet there where some people in the Philipines who hated that gun control took away the good guys guns.

One guy went from house to house killing people. He killed 8

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/335623/wife-of-slain-cavite-gunman-apologizes-to-victims-families

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2102151/pg1

Bingo! "It means because a militia is necessary, the right of the people to be armed and act a as a check and balance to the government shall not be infringed."

Right on. Those old guys believed in checks and balances.

You want sensible gun laws? here they are

Illegal/Banned/No longer produced for civillian use:

 - Any firearm that may hold more than two rounds without requiring reloading

 - Any Firearm that can be reasonably considered concealable

 - Possession of an unauthorized weapon (see above) by an officer of the law who is not currently on duty. These guns would be secured and stored at the police station and not taken home by police officers

 - The sale of ammunition that would not be used for hunting or sport shooting (which would no longer include the use of handguns - get over it)

 

Legal:

 - Every round of ammunition sold, civilian or otherwise would be registered and serialized, this added cost would be passed on to the consumers of ammunition

 - Laws prohibiting the stockpiling of ammunition, this would be easier to trace than it sounds, much easier than catching someone stockpiling kiddie porn

 - Mandatory inspection of all weapons to prevent modifications resulting in multiple round or semi-automatic weapons being created from simple hunting rifles

 - Mandatory recertification for what would be immensely more strict gun ownership standards, along with automatic revocation of gun ownership rights following conviction of a violent crime or otherwise failure to complete the recertification.

 - Strict limitations on discharging a firearm, restricted to registered and licensed shooting ranges and during hunting season. The discharge of a firearm on public or private property would be prohibited and result in possible revocation/suspension of ownership rights.  

 - Federal buyback program, no questions asked to turn in any prohibited firearms

 

Just think about how dangerous guns are, what their only intended purpose is, and how much sense this kind of regulation for something that is so dangerous really does make. 

 

Please no talking points about "now only the criminals have guns" and "how will we defend agains the government that out to get us" It's not! (well maybe the republicans...if you're poor or black) 

How did gun bans work in England?

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz2HAL0dQit

More guns = more deaths, have you heard me disagree overall on that point.

However.

I am not giving up my rights for safety , I guess that was the picture I was trying to paint posts back on our mind set.

 

We know it, but we fell individually safer with our own protection from others and are willing to take our chances to that end.

 

With freedom comes risk less risk less freedom more freedom more risk.

 

There is one thing we are very afraid of that one day everyone will be so safe the government controls everything.

 

Decide how much freedom you want, I have.

More guns do mean less murder. Look at this study from Harvard of all places. You have to keep the other parameters equal.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Citizen's owning guns to keep our Government in check is the funniest part of this thread. I can just see a bunch of fools with AR-15's fighting against a well trained army with tanks, armored personell carriers, aircraft, drones, submmarines and nuclear missiles. Good luck with that one.

 

Red Dawn was just a movie, not real life.

Worked in the middle east. A US solder swears to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Sorry Freddy the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

Every citizen in Israel has their backs to the sea and a common enemy who surrounds them on all sides, hardly a good example for gun safety.

 

 

Ken

You forgot the all important comma. Because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (comma) It means because a militia is necessary, the right of the people to be armed and act a as a check and balance to the government shall not be infringed.

I also have DW 1680 case, and 703 crown tube, however the tube cannot be screwed in totaly, anybody can tell me how to solve this problem!

 

Tks!

You have to counter sink the hole so the tapered part can go in.

Not in Canada my friend.

 

And the constitution was written long ago. The right to carry guns was meant to protect the population from wildlife and hostile natives. Its stupid to keep harping on about the stupid constitution. Its outdated!!

No the second amendment was meant as a check on the federal government's power.

I was lucky enough too get two cases when the prices were cheaper. No I have genuine date and nondate versions.

"I thought it was dw. Cgs look pretty good. Price is very good. Just wondered if anyone had their hands on one."

I bought two...here is the scoop:

There are no numbers etc between the lugs on either end. There are no obvious signs of removal and the case ends have a brushed finish, maybe caused by grinding the numbers off, who knows? Anyway they did an excellent job and the case is very well finished.

The inside of the caseback has the lettering and numbers roughly ground off.

The crystal, crystal retainer, and rotating bezel are not oem spec.

The rotating bezel is held on the crystal retaining ring by a spring wire...not snap on like oem.

Both bezel pearls were missing. The settings are in place though.

The case neck is oem spec so an oem crystal and Clark's bezel kit will work.

The case is threaded for an oem case tube. I do not know if a genuine case tube to case gasket will work or not.

I bead blasted the inside of the case backs to smooth them out and the writing became barely visible.

It says: Montres Rolex SA...Geneva Switzerland...Patented...Stainless Steel (above center).

And below is 5513 (!!)

These two are 5513 cases...not 1680 as advertised and ordered. They are 5.2mm thick and the DW 1680 cases are 5.6mm thick...I just now compared them.

The ad says: "DIY CASE SET FOR 1570 MOVEMENT."

"THIS DIY SET IS FOR YOUSELF DIR PERFECT SUBMARINER 1680 WATCH."

I left good feedback because it is not worth the trouble to send them back.

Sometimes you win.

Sometimes you lose.

Want to sell them?

I would like a 5513 and 5514 maybe a Tudor.

Can we pick a custom serial?

That was one of the best parts.

I said "A little". I enjoyed seeing them in the virgin package, but I enjoyed opening them even more

And I really enjoy wearing them.

It ought to be. It's brand new in every way except for the movement.

I felt alittle guilty opening the factory packs with the parts in them.

Wear it in good health. I went the same route and have both a NOS date and no date version. I love them.

No real trick. Just the same as installing any other overlay. it is just that with the extra space between the movement and dial, you can use a genuine disc as an overlay.

Check out this post I wrote a few years ago. (unfortunately, I never did get around to Pt II.

http://www.rwg.cc/to...-i/#entry568262

Could you pm me if you have any movement holders to sell.

Thanks,

That is nice. Talk about a nice gift. I need friends like that. Congratulations and wear it well.