Wayne La Pierre would never pass a background check

Buzz and I have come to the conclusion that the reason Executive Vice President of the NRA Wayne La Pierre is so opposed to background checks is that he'd never pass the mental health aspect of the check.  He did support background checks in 1999, but that was during has sane years.  Today, he is just plain nuts.
    Since I'm not much of a hunter, sportsman, or gun enthusiast, and my idea of self defense falls into the Monty Python's Holy Grail retreat, "run away!" I had to consult Buzz on this one.  Buzz is a lifetime NRA member and quite the small game hunter.  Like Mitt Romney, he hunts varmints.  He has quite the collection of stuffed squirrels, racoons, rabbits, and prairie dogs adorning his living room walls.

Newtown should have changed everything

    After the tragic deaths of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, Connecticut, public outrage seemed to finally be on the side of gun control.  Three areas seemed ripe for reform:  background checks for all gun sales (criminal record and mental health,) limits on magazine clips (probably 10 or so per clip,) and a renewal of the expired assault weapons ban.
    The mental illness poster child Wayne La Pierre is opposed to all of these. They all infringe on the outrageous profits of gun manufacturers which La Pierre is trying to protect..... Oh sorry, I meant they infringe on the precious Second Amendment right to bear arms which La Pierre is trying to protect.
   
Second Amendment

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that the US Supremes were right when they decided in a 5 to 4 vote that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to bear arms (despite the clear meaning of the clause protects a state "militia's" right to bear arms.) With this said, no right is absolute.  If it were, we wouldn't have libel and slander laws or laws preventing speech which calls for imminent violence or the violent overthrow of the United States government.  (Remember, the First Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law" prohibiting freedom of speech.)
La Pierre's argument that the reasonable laws being proposed are an infringement on Second Amendment rights are the stuff that should cause all reasonable gun owners to take pause and question La Pierre's sanity.

The public wants new gun laws

    94 percent of Americans polled by CNN in January favor background checks, including over 70 percent of NRA members. 61 percent favor bans on semi-automatic weapons, yet La Pierre says "nyet."
    President Barack Obama continues to press for background checks, magazine limits, and an assault weapons' ban, but it is highly unlikely that the magazine limits or assault weapons ban will pass through Congress.  Background checks do have a chance.
    La Pierre's opposition to background checks is pure bullshit.  If the NRA supports the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, how does a background check get in the way.  No one in their right mind wants violent criminals to possess a firearm of any kind.  The same goes with those who are mentally ill.  People like the Colorado theater killer, the Gabby Giffords gunman, and the Newtown shooter should never have been within a mile of a loaded weapon.
    With regards to the magazine limits, Buzz and I were listening to satellite radio today, and they read a message from a 57 year old lifelong hunter.  In Newtown, the killer shot about 150 rounds in about 6 minutes, this 57 year old avid hunter said, "I haven't shot 150 rounds in my lifetime."  Sorta brings home the point on magazine limits.  For what lawful purpose would anyone need a 30 round magazine.  Heck, when I went through basic training, my M-16 had only a twenty round clip, and our job was to actually kill people in battle.
   The final piece is the assault weapons ban.  We had an assault weapons' ban in the US for about ten years.  Originally passed in the mid 1990s by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the ban was allowed to lapse under the Republican Congress and President George W. Bush in 2004.  (Yes, Bush's screw ups weren't only the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, running the economy into a ditch....)
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't even include the assault weapons' ban in his gun control bill, for fear that it could kill the background checks.  He did say it could be offered as an amendment to the bill.  Really?  Apparently too many Senators have been hanging out with La Pierre.

Time to wake up Congress

    It's time to wake up.  Congress needs to know that a good majority of the American people want new gun laws. 

   Republicans have been arguing against the new laws, in part, because they say we should enforce the laws already on the books.  Buzz and I agree, but there's no reason why we can't do both --- pass new laws and enforce the ones already out there.
    As for Wayne La Pierre, let's get him a mental health exam.

You don't need no stinkin' tax returns

GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's tax return problem will be his downfall. His refusal to release no more than two years of tax returns is a politically unsustainable position, but his release of anything more will be political suicide.  He truly is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

This has become an issue, because Romney has made it an issue.  Republicans who jump to his defense and say this is not an important issue may be right, but it is an issue which could cost Romney millions of votes come November.  Democrats win either way.


The Democrats won't let this issue go gently into that sweet night

If Romney lasts through the election with only releasing two years of tax returns (actually one, for 2011, he released an estimate only) the Democrats won't let this issue die.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he has it on good authority that Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.  This isn't the first speculation, and it won't be the last.

Democrats will continue to ask "what's Romney hiding?"  Romney already has a transparency problem and questions about off-shore investments and over-seas bank accounts.  Not releasing tax returns only feeds the speculation.

The Democrats have a point.  What exactly is Mitt hiding?  Did he have years where he paid little or no federal income through liberal use which deductions?  Did he take advantage of over-seas' tax havens? Did he give millions to the Mormon church?  The list goes on and on and will continue to go on and on until he releases more returns.

 The Persuadables will be persuaded

The release or non release will never switch votes of those who have already made up their minds.  The hardcore Romney supporters are not going to jump ship in large numbers regardless of whether he releases or not.  The same goes for the hardcore Obama supporters.  The place where this makes a difference is among the still persuadable voters - that ten percent or so who have yet to make up their minds.

This ten percent can be swayed by a number of issues or non-issues, but Romney will never get the support of a decent percentage of these voters, because they will know Romney only as the guy who's hiding something.  Many of these unpersuadables already have a negative predisposition towards politicians.  They just don't trust any politician, and Romney's reluctance towards transparency only reinforces their distrust.

Romney and his people are well aware of this, but have made a calculation that whatever those tax returns show is far more damaging than not releasing them.  This brings up another issue, which does go to a more troubling concern. 

The tax issue has been raised before

Romney had to know that his tax returns would be an issue.  The tax return question was not first raised in the primaries, but it has been a bone of contention for his opponents since at least his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts. And, this isn't the first time Romney sought the Presidency.  He ran in 2008.

How does a guy who's been running for President for at least the last five years fail to clean up his tax returns and make them look really good?  If he had done this, he would be showcasing his tax returns and touting how he made a lot of money but gave a lot to non- controversial charities and paid his fair share of taxes.

If you are wealthy and take advantage of every tax deduction and tax loophole known to man, nobody cares and nobody will ever know.  But, if you are running for President in a major political party, even the most naive politician would have to know that the voters want to see your tax returns, especially if you are worth $250 million.

Romney's father released 12 years of returns when he ran in 1968

It is particularly ironic that Romney wouldn't have been keenly aware that wealthy candidates for President routinely release their tax returns for multiple years.  After all, Romney's father, the late George Romney, voluntarily released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President in 1968.

The elder Romney, who was the former head of American Motors, said he released 12 years of tax returns, because one year could be a "fluke."  It is also ironic that the elder Romney's effective tax rate was over 30 percent, while Mitt's effective rate in the 2010 return and the 2011 estimate was under 15 percent.

All in all, as Buzz and I see it, those unpersuadables may not know how Romney stands on Russo/United States relations or job creation, but they will know that Romney is a rich guy who refuses to tell them how much he pays in taxes.  This alone is enough to persuade the unpersuadables that Romney is not their guy.