You’re On A Terrorist Watch List? Sure, You Can Buy A Gun

Yes, you read that correctly. If you are on a terrorist watch list, you can pass the current background check and buy a gun from a licensed dealer. Not surprisingly, some people want this changed. Even less surprisingly, the NRA and other Gun Nuts don’t.

Yes, you also read that last bit correctly. The Gun Nuts support the rights of terrorists to keep and bear arms. In fact, they managed to kill an amendment last week that would have taken away the ability of terrorists to buy AR-15’s, bulk gunpowder, and other tools of their lethal trade: that trade being, of course, the killing of Americans.

This is not a partisan issue: the Bushies and the Obamians both tried to take away the rights of terrorists to legally buy the materials they need to, well, terrorize us.

It is a money issue: the NRA, GOA, IFOA, and other lobbyists for the firearms industry want to have as many customers as they can; and terrorists buy lots of weaponry, powder, and other supplies. That is cash for the armament manufacturers, and they want that cash, regardless of how many of our citizens die as a result of terrorist acts.

And if course, it is cash to bribe elected officials to kill any legislation that might keep terrorist groups from being able to legally purchase weapons of mass (and individual) destruction. And like any crooked politico, the bribed “representatives” vote as they were paid to.

Gentle Reader, does this seem to you like “providing aid and comfort to the enemy”? Because it certainly does to me.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Promises are Worth Their Weight in Gold

Think for a minute: Imagine Mr. Blunt and Cranky saying to you, “I promise to be nicer”. How much do those words weigh, traveling through the air? If you answered “nothing”, you’d pretty much be right. So gold times zero equals….yep, zero. So, that’s how much a promise is worth.

In addition, what does “nicer” mean? Kind of vague, you might say, and again you’d be right. So, in addition to being worthless, that hypothetical promise means nothing. Plus, given his track record, do you really believe he’ll be less blunt and cranky? One would hope you don’t.

While reading the fact-check websites from last night’s debate, this writer is reminded of the old adage  quoted in the title of today’s post: Romney made many promises, and they pretty much exemplify both the weightlessness and vagueness that gave rise to the adage. He also is looking pretty crap on the fact-checking websites (more on that tomorrow), which makes his promises even less valuable.

Obama, on the other hand, proved (once again) that he is an inept debater when it comes to style, but told fewer whoppers and made far fewer promises. And of the promises made in 2008? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57505315/obamas-2008-promises-kept-or-broken-/?pageNum=6&tag=page  is a good list of them, and shows that he has actually done pretty well; indeed, some of the promises not kept were due to congressional squabbling and not because the Prexy did not push them.

Promises, promises. We all make them, and their only worth is in how they are kept. Romney has changed positions, lied, blown off fact-checkers and made promises that mathematics prove cannot possibly be kept. Obama has tried to keep his promises, and (so far) at least kept the majority of them.

Mr. B& C