Election Day is finally here. Here are ten things to keep in mind before you cast your vote.

1. Kaine once vowed to protect our Second Amendment rights…sort of.

“I’m committed to not violating the Second Amendment or infringing upon the gun rights of law-abiding citizens,” Kaine told the Washington Post back in 2005. “I’m committed to protecting that constitutional right to hunt and fish…I value the traditions that Virginians value.”

Kaine was running for Governor of Virginia at the time and was likely just trying to appeal to voters. Regardless, his tune has changed since then.

2. Kaine tweeted that he’s “proud” of infringing on your Second Amendment rights.

.@timkaine: Perennially “F” rated by the #NRA during his tenure at both the state and federal levels… https://t.co/JNIkoyUvxS #VPDebate

— NRA (@NRA) October 5, 2016

And proud of it. https://t.co/eTkYtcuAw4

— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) October 5, 2016

So much for that “commitment.”

3. Clinton also claimed to be a “supporter” of gun rights…sort of.

“I support the Second Amendment…I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country,” Clinton said unexpectedly during the last presidential debate.

“I also believe that there can be, and must be, reasonable regulation,” she continued. “Because I support the Second Amendment, doesn’t mean that I want people who shouldn’t have guns to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family.”

Clinton has done little since then to show her understanding of, or respect for, the Second Amendment.

4. Clinton claimed to know better than the Supreme Court when it came to the Second Amendment.

During a private fundraising event last year, Clinton said, “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Clinton was referencing the 2008 Heller case. There is no doubt that if Clinton is elected president, she will appoint an anti-gun Supreme Court Justice.

5. Despite her public criticism for the Supreme Court’s decision, Clinton described the Heller case incorrectly during a presidential debate.

During the second presidential debate, Clinton verbalized her disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision on the District of Columbia v. Heller case.

“I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns, and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them,” she said. “And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation.”

Clinton confused the case with the anti-gun ad that was running at the time. The Heller case had little to do with protecting children from guns; it established our individual right to own a firearm within a federal enclave.

6. Clinton threatened to bypass Congress on gun control.

If Congress refuses to act to end this epidemic of gun violence, I'll take administrative action to do so. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 5, 2015

It looks like Hillary is going to follow Obama’s example: if you can’t get what you want, just dictate it.

7. Hillary said gun control opponents “terrorize the majority of people.”

During a CNN town hall in 2014, Clinton expressed her disappointment that universal background checks weren’t passed following the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation,” she said. ”We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

Clinton clearly has this all backwards.

8. Clinton argued that the gun industry should be held legally liable for the misuse of its products.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) protects gun manufacturers, dealers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits brought against them for “the unlawful or criminal misuse” of their product. Since its enactment, the PLCAA has invalidated hundreds of cases, including the lawsuit brought forth by the Sandy Hook families against Remington Arms.

It's incomprehensible that our laws would protect gun makers over Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this. https://t.co/96uBe92wPi

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 15, 2016

Doing away with the PLCAA would be like allowing someone to sue Honda if their child was killed by a drunk driver operating a Civic. Eliminating the act would ensure that firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers, as well as ammunition manufacturers and accessory makers, would be driven out of business.

9. Clinton thinks the PLCAA means absolutely no liability.

Last year at a forum in Iowa, Clinton claimed, “They [the gun industry] are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

The PLCAA protects the industry from frivolous lawsuits attempting to hold manufacturers, distributors, and dealers responsible for the criminal misuse of their products; however, it does not protect against negligence, criminal behavior,
defects or design problems.

So, wrong again, Clinton. There are, in fact, consequences.

10. Guess what? Kaine wants to hold the gun industry liable, too.

On September 8, 2015, Senator Kaine introduced the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act.

“As recent tragedies in Virginia and across the country have shown, the gun laws in our country have done little to stem senseless gun violence,” said Kaine. “These numbing incidents in urban, rural and suburban communities are made worse by the lack of accountability in those instances where the tragedy might have been prevented. That’s why I’m proud to introduce the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act to help bring some measure of accountability for the violence that continues to plague our communities. It would hold a seller or transferor of firearms criminally liable should they fail to demonstrate they took reasonable steps to prevent a weapon from falling into prohibited hands. Why should someone be able to casually place an illegal firearm in the hands of a felon or other prohibited person?”

When Kaine proposed this Act, there were already laws in place that prohibited someone from knowingly transferring a firearm to a person that is federally prohibited from possessing a gun, or intends to use the firearm in criminal activity.

As the NRA pointed out:

“Under Sen. Kaine’s bill, however, a person would be held strictly liable for transferring a firearm to a prohibited person, unless he or she could somehow demonstrate having ‘taken reasonable steps to determine that the recipient [was] not legally barred from possessing firearms or ammunition…’ Just what those steps are, however, is not specified in the bill. Thus, a person would be risking a federal felony with every firearm transfer, unless he or she adhered to an unwritten code of conduct that could shift with every circumstance.”

In other words, Kaine’s bill would paralyze the gun industry, just as overturning the PLCAA would.

There you have it folks. Some words of “wisdom” before you head to the polls.