If you’re on the Democratic Party’s email listing (and, really, why wouldn’t you be?), you were lucky enough this weekend to get a message straight from President Obama himself. What did Barack want? Oh, he just wanted to remind you that it’s your duty as an American citizen to help him burn the Second Amendment, that’s all.

In case you already moved Obama’s email to your trash folder, we’ll save you the trouble of digging it out.

“We have not gone more than eight days without a mass shooting in this country this year,” Obama wrote. “That means that each week, more families are grieving, more communities are being pieced back together. As a nation, we’re holding everyone affected by these heartbreaking events in our prayers.”

Let’s pause there. Let’s appreciate the spurious statistic Obama uses to break the ice. And so we don’t get hung up in a game of “this source says…” let’s just assume that he’s right. And let’s assume we all agree on the definition of a mass shooting.

Then what? What does this factoid say about the state of gun violence in America? What does it say about our civic responsibilities?

Ask someone who has bought into all of this propaganda and they won’t even hesitate. What do you mean, then what? This is outrageous! It’s a moral injustice! We have to save the country!

Why?

More to the point, what number of days should pass between mass shootings in your ideal version of America? If Obama had said “we have not gone more than twenty days without a mass shooting,” would it make any difference? What if he’d said “we’ve not gone more than six months”? What specific number could he have used to make you think, Hmm, actually, that sounds about right. We should probably leave things the way they are.

This sounds like sarcasm, but it isn’t. This goes to the very heart of gun control propaganda. When you admit to yourself that he could have used almost any interval at all and achieved the same effect, you see how insidious this movement really is.

All right, on with the show.

“Let me be clear on this,” Obama continued. “Unless we do something – change our politics and change our laws – these painful tragedies will continue.”

Obama, we see, has a unique definition of “clear.” His strategy involves “doing something,” “changing our politics,” and “changing our laws.”

But what something? Write an email?

Which aspect of our politics? The one that allows Republicans to disagree with you?

Which aspect of our laws? The ones that already make everything about these mass shootings illegal?

Obama doesn’t say, instead simply encouraging readers to stand up and say enough is enough.

The Democrats are pushing this narrative that says it’s okay to pass certain forms of gun legislation, regardless of the Second Amendment. It’s okay because “the vast majority of blah blah blah want commonsense blah blah blah.” Well, if that’s so, then it’s time to amend the Constitution. Somehow, there isn’t a lot of support in the Democratic Party for something that drastic. Wonder why that might be…

But for people who think it’s possible to enact stricter gun laws and uphold the Second Amendment simultaneously, why do you think that? And more precisely, how far can you stretch “shall not be infringed” before it breaks? And even more precisely, what is the maximum level of gun violence deaths you’re willing to accept? 7,000 deaths a year? 1,000? 58?

Before we even begin to consider entertaining the notion of more gun laws, we should demand concrete answers to these questions.