NRA Ad On Clinton's America: 'Don’t Let Hillary Leave You Protected With Nothing But A Phone'

Posted: Sep 23, 2016 2:05 PM

The National Rifle Association is taking no prisoners in their attacks against Hillary Clinton, with this new ad showing a hypothetical home invasion, where a sleeping woman rushes to the phone on her dresser to dial 9-1-1, but the narrator notes the average response time for police and first responders is 11 minutes, which is too late. She then goes for her gun safe containing her firearm, but it disappears.

It’s an explicit ad showing how in Clinton’s America law-abiding citizens would be stripped of their Second Amendment right to own a firearm, which is used for self-defense by millions of Americans. It ends with the ominous warning that our Second Amendment rights are on the line should Clinton win the presidency and pack the Supreme Court with anti-gun jurists. As the woman turns around, shock is written across her face, indicating that her attacker is already in her room.

The ad closes by saying, “Don’t let Hillary leave you protected with nothing but a phone.”

CNN said that the ad campaign is part of a $5 million effort to turn out pro-Second Amendment voters this election cycle.

The NRA's Political Victory Fund is tasked with spending half the money on five swing states -- Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania -- while its Institute for Legislative Action, its lobbying arm, is spending the second-half on national cable. All of the money is going to a harrowing ad that shows what the NRA says would happen if Hillary Clinton appoints her chosen justices to the Supreme Court.

Of course, liberals are crying foul over the ad, labeling it inaccurate—or saying that the NRA is just plain lying to the public. Right, because Democrats, or any politician for that matter, never lie to voters, right? Does anyone remember if you like your plan, you can keep it regarding Obamacare? That’s probably one of the biggest public policy lies we’ve seen in recent memory. Yet, back to guns, Hillary Clinton, like her talking points about her emails, is walking a waffled line. She’s a gold medalist in linguistic gymnastics concerning being pro-Second Amendment (for a Democrat), not wanting to take people’s guns away, and then supporting measures that would…lead to gun confiscation.

In July, during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Clinton probably shocked some people post-Philadelphia by saying that she doesn’t want to take people’s guns away, she doesn’t want to repeal the Second Amendment, and she doesn’t want to see the landmark 2008 D.C. v Heller decision overturned; it’s the decision that said that Americans have a individual constitutional right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia for the lawful purposes of self defense. The decision only dealt with federal enclaves, but it was expanded to the states in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago.

Okay—so Clinton is no longer pro-repeal Heller, which wasn’t her original position at a private fundraiser in New York last year.

“…The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get,” said Clinton at the time. 

Just before the 2016 election was warming up, she told a New Hampshire resident that Australian-style gun control measures were something to consider. Folks, keep in mind, that Australian-style gun control means bans and confiscation—and it’s been a total disaster, as it’s created a violent black market for criminals (shocker!).

In June, Clinton couldn’t definitively say that we have a constitutional right to own firearms during an interview with a former operative of her husband, George Stephanopoulos, on ABC’s This Week. And now she changes her tune? There’s a reason no one trusts her that goes beyond her email and Clinton Foundation issues. Clinton was against gay marriage, and then had a change of heart when 2016 was nearing. She says she’s a progressive, though she’s tried to pass off like a moderate, pragmatic centrist. She’s for a $12 minimum wage, now she’s a die-hard fighter for the fight for $15. She’s admitted to voting for border security measures that may have included a wall or fence. The point is that Clinton is going to say whatever needs to be said in order to get elected, or look palatable to the Democratic base. Even Barack Obama saw that in 2008.

Given Clinton’s history with the Second Amendment this cycle, it’s a wise choice not to trust her on this issue in any way, shape, or form. It’s a mirage. We all know it’s a mirage. And the fact that the more left-leaning news outlets cite the Wallace interview as definitive proof that she’s totally onboard with not banning, or taking away guns, even though she’s probably one of the most dishonest and untrustworthy candidates to ever run for the presidency. Also, let’s not forget that a Clinton delegate was caught saying how the Left would actually ban guns, which is a series of bait-and-switch moves, like saying you’re for “common sense gun control” policies, getting elected to Congress, and then passing draconian anti-gun measures.

Trusting Clinton on guns…please.