It bears repeating. From Kentucky.com:

A rival brief, signed by 18 Democratic members of Congress, counters that lawmakers long have had the right to regulate — and ban — “the use and possession of certain weapons.”

Clinton and Obama have long histories of sympathy for that view.

When Obama first ran for the Illinois Senate 12 years ago, he answered “yes” when asked whether he backed banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in the state.

He’s softened that position in recent years. When she was asked why Obama didn’t sign one of the Supreme Court briefs, campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, “Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms.”

But, she added, “he also believes that the Constitution permits state and local governments to adopt reasonable and common-sense gun-safety measures.” She didn’t specify what such measures might be.

Clinton has a long history as an outspoken supporter of tough gun-control measures, but she, too, has moderated in recent months; last month in Wisconsin, she described how she once went hunting in Arkansas and shot a duck.

At a January debate, she called herself a “political realist, and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street.”

Her words were almost identical to those of Obama; “I believe in the Second Amendment,” she said. “People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sense approach this.”

Just because they’re “stepping softly” doesn’t mean that when some gun ban or other gun control legislation crosses their desk they won’t sign it into law in a NY or Chicago minute.

They’ll step hard when it comes time to crush our rights.