Actually, he did release his tax returns from the last few years. What he refused to release was stuff decades old and not really pertinent to the election.
I'm pretty sure I didnt comment on it all that much other than to point out on his voluntarily choosing to pay a higher tax rate in order to fulfill a promise he made on paying taxes.
Really? Do you have a link?? I had no idea, actually, that he ever released his returns from the last few years - and I'm ashamed to admit that! It was a very big deal to me, as I thought it pretty well characterized his attitude and judgement as a candidate.
I thought he had only released is 2010 returns, which showed that slightly inflated federal tax income payment (the one you reference, I assume) to bring him into accordance with that claim he had made earlier that he "had never paid less than 11%". When returns were processed by his tax attorney, and it was discovered that he would fall below that boastful 11% threshold, he opted to forgo *just enough* charitable contributions to make the math work. In other words, he did the absolute bare minimum...
As I see Forms gun ownship today as germane to the discussion i'll tell you what. I only want to know what he owns today - not what he owned a decade ago. Does that fulfill the criteria of you trying to use Romney's tax returns as some kind of bizarro explanation of why someones personal gun ownership might not be pertinent? I hope so.
I think its legitimate to ask anyone commenting on this topic as to what their gun ownership is. This is supposed to be a simple discussion, not some formalized political campaign issue. If I were at a bar with a friend talking about this, sure i'd ask them what they owned (if I didnt already know). I fail to see why you object to that so stenuously. I guess you think it harms your overall argument in some fashion. /oh well.
OK, well, since you want to know everyone's gun ownership in this thread: I OWN NONE. I WAS RAISED IN A HOME WITH 2 .22 RIFLES, AND A HISTORIC SHOTGUN (NO AMMO); NON-FIREARMS: 1 AIR RIFLE, 2 AIR PISTOLS, 2 COMPOUND BOWS, 3 LONG BOWS
How on earth is any of that relevant?
Actually, more than a few around here thought Romneys older tax documents very relevant. IF you really think that they did, then of course the firearm ownship of someone commenting on such an issue should be relevant as well.
See how the logic of your own point works against you?
Yeah - precisely my point. You are claiming here that one guy's current compliance with the law is relevant to his arguments regarding that law, but in Romney's case there were several Republican posters here - and I thought you were among them - who argued that since the law didn't require a presidential candidate to disclose his [it's always someone with a penis, sadly] taxes then a *lack* of disclosure is perfectly fine and not at all worth mentioning.
But now you're in this thread, pressuring a commenter to disclose something that most of us see as irrelevant - or, at best, a distraction - and refusing to move on. Do you see the hypocrisy? Either we were correct and right in demanding that Romney disclose his wheelings and dealings, or You are correct that someone can't have an anti-gun opinion *while owning guns, which are legal*.
And just to be clear, I'm not here to defend whatever position Formaldehyde has taken - I simply think that your requirement is ridiculous. If anything, a poster who has a familiarity with weapons and still advocates for their restriction seems quite sensible to me. If you were on the restriction side, seeing as how you have (I assume) professional familiarity with them, I'd be supporting you here.
In my own world, it's like when someone argues about how dangerous table saws are - they are dangerous in the wrong hands, no doubt. And I don't agree with any and all lawsuits that inexperienced consumers may bring against the manufacturers (something the weapons industry is pointedly excluded from!), but I also think that manufacturers have a responsibility to make products that employ the absolute state of the art when it comes to safety. In this case I'm specifically referencing SawStop licensing.
But using a saw not equipped with SawStop doesn't mean that I'm a hypocrite or that my arguments *for* deploying the technology are invalid.
I know that military regulation is quite restrictive on personal weapons on military property. Far more so than they are in local civilian communites. In fact, its a crime to even bring a registered firearm onto a military base undisclosed. We have people get cited for that all the time at the front gates of JBLM. Thats probably what the NRA was advocating for, because of how much more restrictive military base access is on non-military firearms.
Yeah - until the NRA successfully convinces the military and police forces - the sole group of professional weapons handlers - to relax their internal rules on protocol, I will ignore EVERYTHING they say. Soldiers and Police are the few groups I actually trust with guns - precisely because of the all the training and paperwork required for discharges.
