Just continue to grovel to Your Lord and Messiah, Juan.

Cherry picked facts and outright lies.

Unfortunately for Juan and other leftists, we can read (unlike many leftists). We can read the Constitution. We can read history. We know that leftist, totalitarian gun control measures are not compatible with the Constitution or for the existence of a free people. If we cannot fight, we are servants of the government.

Another Juan-derful job of diluting the facts. Notice that his "presidential examples of gun control executive orders" ALL had to do with imports - except Clinton´s and the assault weapons ban he signed was allowed to expire. If that´s not enough to "convince" you - how about this juan: Bring up Pres. Lincoln! Why not? Obama´s doing his best to make himself look like Honest Abe - let´s just add to the mix, even if it doesn´t apply to the argument. And hey -- this gun control won´t be so bad...after all, Feinstein´s "strict" measure will allow Americans to keep their assault weapons. My, oh my - how GENEROUS our benefactors in Washington are ---- allowing us peasants to keep what is ours. Too bad these politicians have put themselves so high on a pedestal, it´s getting really hard for us commoners to kiss their posteriors. Finally - his closing remark is so bizarre that I will let another LDotter address it...I fear my word limit is almost reached.

The final word on what constitutes "infringement" and what does not will not belong to Congress, it will not belong to the SCOTUS. It will rest firmly with the 300 million arms held freely and constitutionally by law abiding citizens. They can accept this now or.. later.

Mr. Williams ignores the evolving (thanks to Republican appointees with the various courts) interpretations of the 2nd Amendment in favor of an individualized right to bear arms to prevent tyranny by an uncontrollable government. Incredibly, the evolution probably began with a Yale Law Journal entitled "The Embarassing Second Amendment." It is a must read for anyone really interested in the issue. Mr. Williams is ignorant on this topic.

I saw the byline and instantly knew there was no reason to waste even invaluable time reading it.

Wonder if using the name Quan helped him get jobs? Really, I´m just wondering. No agenda, nothing like that... just wondering.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Juan, what is so tough to understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Infringe: 1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.)
2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass

Juan, remember when the Constitution used to be the Supreme Law of the Land?

We need only look south of our border, where the good guys are unarmed and the bad guys are shooting them with Eric Holder´s guns, to see Obama´s vision of gun control.

Let´s not forget that in the grand scheme of Obama´s concern for public safety, many of our domestic government agencies have just armed themselves to the teeth with hundred´s of thousands of rounds of hollow point bullets.

"Sorry, Congressman but in gun lingo you have just shot off your rhetorical buckshot before having a clear view of the target, in this case, the facts"

Sorry, Juan, but that´s not any "gun lingo" that I can recognize...

What this deceitful leftist stooge "thinks" is of no concern to me.

Juan, would you feel the same way if it were the 1st Amendment being so regulated?

Here come the Øbama Harpies, screeching that he has the absolute power to do as he pleases and the Constitution be damned. Do not believe the "Gobel-ites" - they are telling half truths and lying by out-right omissions! Typical propaganda!

Juan is such a lapdog. Too bad he´s not housebroken.

Uh oh. Didn´t the powers that be at NPR insist that Juan Williams was in need of psychiatric help.

Poor Juan. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Juan, your doctor needs to ask you if you own a gun, and let the process begin...!

If only libs were half as determined to protect this explicit right against "infringement" as they are to protect other rights, implicit and explicit, against "infringement", such as the "rights" to vote without proper ID, have an abortion on demand, or push pornography, media violence, or profanity.

If Juan were out walking in SE Washington, DC late at night and four of "Obama´s children" approached him what do you think he would most like to have in his sweaty hand? I doubt he would opt for a copy of the latest editorial from the Washington Post decrying mouth-breathers and their guns but I bet he would want one of those guns himself.

Im with #10. I´m 53 years old and have been shooting since I was 9. I got my first gun of my own from Dad at 16. I have never heard that stupid phrase he mentioned. The closest thing to it might be "going off half cocked", a leftover from the flintlock days.

Also, am I the only one that notices that, whenever a lib discusses the constitution, the discussion centers around what they think it DOESN´T mean?

As soon as I saw the article was by Juan Williams, I had no reason to read it. Juan is FOX´s Affirmative Action hire and it shows.

does any serious person under the age of 65 still watch Foax news?

Webster’s Dictionary: Use a comma to set off nonessential elements that precede, interrupt, or follow the independent clause. (As in the 2nd Amendment below)

The 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not infringed.

Webster’s Dictionary: Use a comma to set off nonessential elements that precede, interrupt, or follow the independent clause. (As in the 2nd Amendment below)

The 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not infringed.

Sorry about the double post but if it is said often enough maybe it will be understood.

As usual, Juan is wrong. No surprise there - he´s a liberal and they are nearly always wrong about everything.

The right of the people (that´s us - the public, as individuals) to keep (have, possess, own, etc.) and bear (have with us wherever we are or go to) shall not be infringed (do I really have to spell this one out too).

Juan, there is only one reason that you make your living by writing and talking. You couldn´t make the grade at McDonalds.

It never ceases to amaze how the leftist and hoplophobes manage to avoid the obvious. Words mean things, very specific, precise things. ". . . shall not be infringed." REALLY, REALLY simple words, easy to understand unless you WANT to not understand because you don´t like what it actually means.

In addition, the authors of the Constitution wrote a large document, basically a "what we really meant in the Constitution and why." It is called the Federalist Papers and is readily available.

Ask the next person who thinks the Second Amendment is unclear if they have bothered to read the portions of the Federalist Papers that explain it. The answer will always be a blank stare.

Ignorant, uninformed, obviously wrong but never in doubt that they know everything, like Juan.

Juan found the crack pipe again

Lincoln did not free the slaves by Executive Order. As Commander in Chief, he freed slaves in the areas of rebellion. No slaves were freed in the rest of the country. Juan must of dozed off during or has not seen "Lincoln". By the way, can the screenwriter of the movie "Amazing Grace" sue the screenwriter of the movie "Lincoln"?

Semper Fi

A ´militia´ isn´t a sports team and has no sporting purposes.
´Arms´ aren´t just ´firearms´.

Part of the problem started back in 1939 when the SCOTUS made up the BS notion that only arms suitable for a well regulated militia is covered by the 2AM (Miller v. United States). THAT became the basis of the ´sporting purpose´ test.
Ironically, that same ruling should have made everything used by the military available to the general public under the 2AM by now.


In Miller v. United States, (U.S.Ark. 1939), two men were charged with transferring a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in violation of the NFA.
A federal district court rejected the indictment, ruling that the NFA did indeed violate the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed.

Writing for the court, Justice James McReynolds dismissed the defendants case with this statement: "the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ´shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length´ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia*, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
[*opinion, not fact]

McReynolds:"certainly it is not within Judicial Notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
[Well, they sure as heck ARE now.]