On Thursday, Bank of America restated its commitment in the heroic fight against gun manufacturers.

Vice Chairman Anne Finucane told Bloomberg in an April 10th interview the loan company would not provide borrowers any funds used to manufacture “military-style firearms for civilian use.”

But then: a Reuters report Sunday blew the whistle on B of A’s $43+ million assistance in gunmaker Remington’s bankruptcy.

Enter stage Left, the hashtag #boycottbankofamerica.

In response to the controversy, a press release was made available Thursday, defending the lending institution’s participation in the financing because it was set before the April 10th pledge. Also, the statement explained the bank would move forward with its new anti-gun policy as soon as Remington was out of bankruptcy. In other words, Bank of America may/would sell Remington’s debt to another company. Finucane affirmed the organization’s anti-gun stance in no uncertain terms:

“Let me be clear – we are not changing our policy to end financing of the manufacture of these military-style firearms.”

Bank of America has the right, in my estimation, to loan to whomever it wants. Nevertheless, I wince at the maneuvering of a corporation to distance itself from a gun manufacturer. It disturbs me, due to one simple thing: guns are not bad.

Those in favor of hefty gun control constantly reference a firearm as the weapon of choice for bad guys. That distinction is not untrue. However, it is also the weapon of choice for good guys, because “you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.”

Therefore, I find it exceedingly cringeworthy when those on the Left look at a good guy and a bad guy shooting at each other, and their takeaway isn’t the following mathematical common sense:

good guy with a gun + bad guy with a gun = [sum], then [sum] – gun – guy = the only difference between the two: GOOD VS BAD.

Why aren’t the Left anti-BAD? Why aren’t they pushing for BAD control? In the above computation, the constant is guys with guns. Hence, it makes no more sense to be against guns that it does to be against guys.

Oh, wait — I just remembered… the Left is against guys.

Sorry.

Hobbling on to my next point:

In the media coverage of the above Bank of America plot points, wording has been abysmal. Articles from major news outlets continue to float the term “assault rifle,” even though there is no such thing.

Perhaps most egregious, the firearms experts at the ironically-named ThinkProgress trumpeted, “Bank of America Promises Remington Will Be Last Semi-automatic Gunmaker to Get Bailed Out by Bank.” I capitalized that, even though they didn’t, because if you read it as a normal sentence, you’ll sound like a caveman. But I digress…

They referenced a “semi-automatic,” as if it’s a particularly incendiary type of gun. For those who don’t know: essentially, “semi-automatic gun” is just another way of saying “gun.”

In one of my greatest of wishes, for just a moment, the internet would shut down. And television would, ever so briefly, return to a time when there were only three channels — back when, if the President was on TV, everyone was out of luck. I wish we could go there right now, for just five minutes. And while in that simple scenario, with all eyes on the screen, I wish somebody — anybody — would interrupt our normally-scheduled program to show a rifle and explain it: it’s a hollow tube with an explosion at one end and an opening at the other. The explosion forces out whatever’s in the barrel (a.k.a., a bullet). When the bullet comes out, don’t be in front of it.

That’s a gun — a handgun, a rifle, a wooden gun, a spooky-looking black plastic one. They are all guns and follow the same basic design. They are all capable of assault. And a semi-automatic, despite its name, isn’t “semi” at all. Where did we get this term? An ugly person isn’t “semi-hot.” A skinny person isn’t “semi-fat.” Let’s abolish the “semi” idea and call it a manual. How about that? Like a car. It seems reasonable, since, with that type of gun, you have to pull the trigger each time you want a bullet to come out.

Anyway, in conclusion: major outlets rage against basic information, while Bank of America wrestles the cancelable constant in a battle of good vs evil.

And the world just gets a little bit goofier.