Actually, that's not a false premise.
NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense'
It may not be an accurate quote.
However, the facts are that when Clinton was questioned about the "Australian Solution", her reply "that's something we should look into".
The "Australian solution" was that private citizens had few options available if they wanted to keep a firearm in their home for self defense ... or for most other options.
The "Australian Solution" banned and confiscated guns.
This is a 'fact' which Politifact politely ignored, when the ignored Hillary's comment that that's
"..worthy of looking into".
What Clinton is very careful NOT to say is "That's something that is not on the board in my administration".
If she meant, it, she would have said it.
I doubt if anyone failed to understand what she was saying.
Protection of the Second Amendment Rights of Americans is not only NOT on her list of priorities, but the infringment of the constitition is a HIGH priority to her. She sees no reason why the Consititution should direct her decisions, should she be elected to the office of President.
That may work for the trusting souls who think that the Democratic Party can do no wrong, but it has a negative effect on those of us who don't trust candidates of EITHER party to "Do The Right Thing" when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights.
It's not about 'just' the Second Amendment
ALL of our rights are in danger, depending on the officials who are seated in this next election.
The Democratic Party has, of late years, become increasingly divorced from the welfare of their constituents. Not only at the national level, but at the state and even 'local' level. Domocrats have taken the haughty air that they have no obilgation (if/when elected) than to provide minimal support to those voters who depend upon the established government to pay their rent and buy their breakfast.
So far, this too-convenient relationship between the government and the governed has worked out well .. for the government. They take from the producers, give to the non-producers, and get elected to continue the cycle of dependency on the Government; to their benefit, not ours.
Oh, sure, the freeloaders are eating well on the largesse of the Working Class.
But the Working Class has less say in the government of their country, and the State continues to slew closer to the Socialist Economy .... which works just fine, until the folks who actually WORK can no longer earn enough income to support the folks that vote for Hillary and her class.
So what can we do to 'fix the system'?
There's not a single damn thing.
The "proletariate" (defined as those who thrive on the Government Dole) know a good thing when they see it. The Democrats get in office, they vote for support of the non-working, and the non-working reward them in their votes.
The only thing which can change this equation is if the voting laws would be changed to exempt people who are 'on the dole' from having vote.
Surprisingly, more people who receive benefits (money) from the government (democrats) regularly vote than those who actually work for a living. Source? Any website which pays attention to income vs voting rights.
The people who pay for this country's economy are all too frequently to distracted by their jobs to vote.
On the other hand, the free-loaders have nothing better to do on Election Day than to vote.
And they vote for the people who give them money.
What a great surprise THAT is!