Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

[Terry Britton]

If you are talking about the Martin incident, the public furor over his conviction has actually led to parliamentary debates on ways to broaden the rights of homeowners to defend themselves without fear of prosecution in cases in burglary. Under American law, Martin would be precluded from gun ownership because of his police and mental health record. How was the incident used to "strip gun owners of their rights"?

He wouldn't have been precluded from gun ownership, just purchasing from a dealer. Anyone else could have purchased it, and gave it to him, legally.

[YardleyLabs]

He wouldn't have been precluded from gun ownership, just purchasing from a dealer. Anyone else could have purchased it, and gave it to him, legally.

Suggesting a loophole in our laws. I'm not positive, but I believe that the PA law prohibits persons excluded from purchasing guns from acquiring new guns from whatever source. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have allowed loopholes that allow some transfers to happen without verifying whether or not the purchaser is legally qualified to acquire guns. I see no reason for such a loophole; it makes a mockery of our other restrictions.

[Joe S.]

We did? I don't recall that meeting of the minds.

It was easy to miss: small minds, short meeting.

Got Link? Good luck with that.

While I continue to search for the link......riddle me this, Batman: If it isn't illegal, why do we need a Presidential Finding or an Authorization to do it?

If you recall, the term "regime change" was coined by Bill Clinton and was reflected in the Iraq Liberation Act he signed into law in '98. The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act, you might ask? To foster the overthrow of a foreign government.

Now, I don't recall the term "regime change" being coined by President Clinton but Bill or Marv might remember when the term was first actually used. This for your edification and enlightenment:

"Regime change" is literally the replacement of one regime with another. While it is widely believed that the term was first coined by former US President Bill Clinton,[1][2] use of the term dates to at least 1925.[3]

Just trying to be helpful...it's my nature, you know.

Helpful Regards,

Helpy Helperson

[Hew]

While I continue to search for the link......riddle me this, Batman: If it isn't illegal, why do we need a Presidential Finding or an Authorization to do it?

I don't know for a fact that a Presidential Finding/Authorization is required, but it makes sense. Would you like unelected flunkies in the CIA, NSA, State Dept., etc. making the decision on their own to destabilize or overthrow a foreign govt.? Moreover, the premise of your above question is that a Presidential Finding/Authorization gives the president carte blanche to break the law. It doesn't.