old skool

For the price, his factory straps are a good value. But some people do have troubles with his customer service. I haven't had any problems with him other than trying to contact him and get the order placed. I would recommend Panatime over IWI personally.

Amazing.

Awesome. Thanks.

I just picked up a new carry rig + Storm Case, so I snapped a couple quick pictures to share: Included are a gov't size SA 1911 TRP, AKJ rig, WC mags, Benchmade auto, and the Hardigg case.

Great combo and cool buckle. At first I thought strap culture but now I am thinking not. Is it a custom PVD coated buckle? ($$$)

I have been asking the same questions myself.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. I am talking about in the philosophical sense. What they said clearly can and should be applied to gay people. They set up a system that is vague when it needs to be and specific when it needs to be. Everything that is necessary to extend equal rights to black people and women is contained in the Constitution. The amendment was necessary at the time because of the unwillingness of the people to see past their own personal bias. It also should be said that not everyone was in support of slavery or treating women as property. I think it is in principle. I am a libertarian. I believe in very limited government, no legislation of subjective personal morality, and the liberty, rights and freedom of all people equally. I think amending a constitution to limit rights to a minority group is a very bad thing for this country regardless of who it affects.

I am sorry that you are confused by what I am saying. I will try to make it more clear. Voting isn't an inalienable right. It isn't life, liberty or property. One might argue that it is part of pursuit of happiness. But if that is the case, then so would marriage for gay people. What I am talking about is equality under the law. Equality for women and black people to vote as well as gay people. Because black people were not allowed to vote and that was upheld by the SC, a constitutional amendment was required to make it clear. I believe that the constitution always allowed for women and black people to vote. (The whole "all men are created equal" bit.) However, the people at the time including the SC judges were not interested in following the constitution. The amendment made up for this. What we have in CA is the opposite. You seem to believe that any slice of opinion in any part of the country at any given time = absolute truth. I find this to be faulty logic. In reality, the majority of this country believes that gay people should have equal legal rights to marriage. The issue is surrounding the word marriage is a muddy mess of emotion. This makes discussing the issue and arriving a consensus difficult, especially when you have people paying for advertisements that are not entirely factual. The problem is that separate but equal is un-American. That has been proven to be true over time based on this country's history. The problem is that people have a hard time reconciling that with their dislike of gay people. I don't see any issue personally because words will never hurt me, to borrow a childhood saying. The problem is that the word marriage is no longer a religious term because it is used by the secular government to describe a legal contract that has nothing to do with any church. That is the part that people refuse to grasp and why they don't understand the argument about equal rights for gay people and why the discussion of law and constitutionality always turns into mudslinging and argument about religion and opinion. No it isn't. You really are failing to see this, perhaps on purpose? Gay people are by definition attracted to the same sex. They are a minority but they are also equal citizens and deserve equal treatment under the law. It comes down to two consenting adults. There are legal reasons for excluding polygamy which has nothing to do with religious morals. This is made particularly clear by the insistence of the Mormon church to allow for it. I personally couldn't care less if a man could marry multiple men or women. When it comes to taxes though and legal rights, the government said no. Again, it is not based on personal moral opinion. As for marrying children, well that has a long history of practice. In fact, in many places, minors can be married with parental consent. This is not a minority group. It is also a legal situation where the government can't allow a minor to be a consenting adult. This protects the child. This isn't relevant. Again, how many times do I have to repeat that 'society' has long perpetuated atrocities? It is a failed argument that is only adopted as a last recourse when no other logical argument can be found.

As expected, this discussion of legal issue has degraded into personal attacks and general argument about completely tangential issues. Your list of "Myths" is again, another personal opinion that is skewed towards your perception. The beauty of our system of government, when it is working correctly is to check and balance society with the laws of the land. California's constitution required that all citizens receive equal treatment under the law. The SC protected the minority from the majority as it was intended to do. The citizens have a right to amend the constitution, but it is sad to those who value liberty that they chose to use it to limit rights rather than to affirm rights. This is a new precedent which in my opinion is dangerous.

This thread has prompted me to do a little research as it is a compelling intellectual discussion. There are limitations to our rights when they harm other people. Freedom of speech is one that is affected in this manner and there are others as well. We don't limit the free speech of people we find objectionable however, simply for this reason. Two consenting adults is the answer to your question. I won't bother to discuss the issue of incest because it is a tangential discussion that could easily overwhelm the key points of this discussion. I will simply say incestuous marriages were widespread throughout recorded history. I place no moral judgment on this fact, simply putting it out there as I don't believe history in and of itself to be an overriding argument of value. The problem as I see it is that people have their own personal views about what is "right" or "wrong." They are subjective and some people wish to limit rights or control behavior of others based on those judgments. Across the world there are societies whose cultural norms may be hard for you or I to understand. There is plenty of in-fighting among the various religions that exist currently and other religions that are no longer practiced. I know for a fact that you can't legislate morality. Our country has a history of trying and failing to do just this. Unless the behavior of another adult impacts your own life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, I feel it is best to simply mind one's own business. I don't spend any of my time worrying about what other adults are doing in their free time. I am sure many would do things that I disagree with or would find to be highly objectionable. But I am very glad to live in a country where I can live my own life as I see fit without undue intervention from the government. FWIW, even the religious argument is in my mind not relevant to the discussion of legal equality since we don't have a state sponsored religion. We have freedom for all religions and for those who do not wish to have a religion. The Episcopal Church, for one, allows gay ceremonies and acknowledges gay unions. There is at least one legal battle currently underway in which a gay couple was married by the Church but the state they live in will not honor their marriage. Religious tolerance is a very important freedom in America. In his Letters on Toleration John Locke advanced two main arguments:- On an ethical basis no Church has the right to persecute anyone as alike with civil society the joining of a church does not prejudice other "natural" rights which remain inviolable. The direst sanction a church should have against those who strained its powers of acceptance should be expulsion. On a rational basis Locke argued about the practical impossibility of any Church being absolutely certain that it was THE vehicle of truth. Human knowledge and brains are limited, faith is typically speculative and mysterious, certainty in matters of faith is thus perhaps impossible to achieve and hence persecutions are very much less acceptable than open-minded exchanges of ideas where all may hope to gain a more true grasp of faith related issues. The greatest threat to religious freedom is religion's institutional intrusion into the control of the state and individual Christians. There is a chain of important events leading to the discovery and establishment of a government which allows religious freedom, and religion which does not try to impose its will by force or mental coercion on the government nor any other religious society or individual. We say "religious toleration demands religious freedom" because the loss of freedom means that only one viewpoint is tolerated. John Locke implied that those who cry toleration the loudest cannot be trusted with the control of religious freedom. It may be interesting to note that in 1948, California was the first state to forbid a prohibition on interracial marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not conclusively strike down such barriers until 1967. Of relevant discussion are the principles of democracy: Majority Rule, Minority Rights On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government. Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual. Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions. Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society. Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks. There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights. The government has seen fit to create a legal vehicle by which two consenting adults can establish a legal framework that includes 1,049 benefits and protections. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

This topic has sparked a curiosity in me and I always love a good debate. I have done a little research and thought I would present a few additional viewpoints for consideration. State versus Church: Conditions: A religious ceremony is in no way legaly binding to any party. A legal marriage licence binds two spouses AND third parties. Explanation: When the two above situations conflict for any reason, the State recognizes only the legal marriage licence and not the religious ceremony. Example: The State will issue a new marriage licence to adulterous, divorced Roman Catholics without regard to the Church's requirement of the previous marriage being annulled. Comments: The State cannot possibly legally recognize every viewpoint of every religion without resulting in absolute chaos. We cannot simply pick and choose individual religious views to be legally supported or negated without discriminating against individuals and their religious views or lack thereof. Constitutional Concerns: Conditions: Subsequent to the decision of the State to issue marital unions, our government has seen fit to establish laws protecting the property and rights of individuals who choose to enter into such an agreement. Explanation: If one citizen chooses to enter into such an agreement with another citizen, regardless of gender, I do not see how this interferes in any way with the original purpose or intent of the government's involvement in this issue in the first place. I base this assumption on the fact that we are all, regardless of gender, citizens and our government is charged with providing equal protection to all citizens under the law. Variations in the application and functionality of such laws based solely on sexual orientation to me is nothing more than discrimination. Constitutionality: Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws Statement of intent: If an individual is required by the State to change their very nature by definition in order to achieve equality under the law, they are not equal. Religious and social norms/practices throughout history:

Hmm. Well, I don't really want to get into the middle of this. I will say that marriage is not a right. Of course it isn't. The problem is that the State government has decided to make a legal union between two adults that is called marriage. This legal union has nothing to do with religion in any regard. You don't need to be religious to get one. The State can't force Churches to marry people and the Church can't force the state to grant or revoke the legal union. What is guaranteed by the Constitution is equal rights for all people under the law. Since the law allows for legal unions (marriage), they have to provide them equally. This is what the CA SC upheld.

That is all kinds of awesome. Excellent strap execution.

Thanks guys. I am wearing it on the PVD as I type this.

Thanks. I've been looking around without much success for a while. I saw a pretty cool Coach strap from SanDave posted by a guy on 'Risti, but Donghoon didn't have any more of that color leather.

I had been looking for a nice olive strap to go with the PVD. So, I decided to do a special dye treatment to the Buscadero leather and this is what I got: This is what I am wearing today It has a cool yellow/tan pull up effect. I'm pretty happy with how the combo turned out.

And ox-blood Buscadero as well:

From My Watch Photographs From My Watch Photographs From My Watch Photographs From My Watch Photographs I love the Briefcase. Made by Nuri of Zeugma. Same maker as this: From My Watch Photographs

I'm really liking this new Buscadero oil-tan nubuck leather and I finally got around to doing a photoshoot of my watches with these straps. Enjoy.

Thanks a lot guys. It is painful not to get the vintage treatment done to the dial, lume, hands, but I want to wait for the movement. I just can't seem to find one anywhere.

Is it supposed to be better than other Chinese cases?

Correct.

Awesome! Yes I am very happy with this 1911. It photographs well.