Mitt never had a license at all and apologized for it. Though it is not clear about Utah, since they don't reveal that information, but Mitt cannot turn one up.
It’s not nit-picking if he says things to make me like him or trust him that turn out to require a bit more explanation, a bit of nuance, or a paragraph or two of clarification by his staff.
So Mitt tells me that he’s a gun owner and a hunter all his life, to make me want to vote for him (after all, he’s like me) and upon investigation, he once fired a rifle at a rabbit and once went quail hunting with other politicians for a photo op. In fact, he does not own as gun as he claimed, and never had a license to hunt anywhere. That’s not nit-picking; that’s due diligence. I check the tread on the tires of used cars too.
Romney is a tremendous person with lots of talent, but if he’s going to fib to convince me to vote for him, I’ll lobby the eventual conservative republican president to make Mitt chief of staff. He’d be stellar in that role.
I don't own a shotgun, but I go trap shooting with one of my Dad's guns all the time. In fact, I'm the only one who uses that gun, so even though it's not legally mine, it's still mine in a sense. Again, what's the difference? And why would anyone care?
So Romney hunts in a state where you don't need a license to hunt varmints. What's the big deal?
Why is everyone turning into such a detail freak lately?