pissed offThe Issue: Years of mishandling the gun issue have cost progressives the support of many Americans who would otherwise be on their side.
The Message: I take a back seat to no one in support of Second Amendment rights, but those rights do not extend to terrorists and criminals.
The Policy: Supporting Second Amendment rights, closing gun law loopholes that terrorists and criminals can exploit, fixing the broken background check system, and reversing the Bush gun crime policy by vigorously enforcing the major federal gun laws on the books.
The message, in particular, is word for word what Obama has said about the Second Amendment ever since the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban. It goes on to say how "progressives" - that's left-wing moonbats, to the uninitiated - need to talk about "commonsense restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. When a leftist talks about "commonsense restrictions" on guns, he's really advocating the same tired old gun bans that the Supreme Court recently struck down. It's the same as when a leftist talks about "nuance": grab your crotch and your wallet, because they're getting ready to screw you or rob you.
As for "vigorously enforcing" the gun laws, they have no credibility there at all: the Clinton administration was shockingly lax in enforcing even the major gun law it rammed through Congress, the 1994 crime (of a) bill. It made even attempting to buy a gun a felony for those banned - but even though they bragged about the number of people they prevented from buying a gun, not a single one was prosecuted for it. There's absolutely no reason to believe that any laws enacted would be enforced any more vigorously. They just want to pass the laws so they can have more ways to keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding.
