Schreechy?

Re: #4

I'm trying to understand what this initiative. Please correct me if I am wrong:

Suppose I live in New York State and NY went along with this proposal. Then, when the national popular votes are counted, even if the Democrat won in NY, if the Republican won nationally, all of the NY electoral college votes would go to the Republican.

This would ONLY make sense if every eligible voter (same eligibility rules nationwide) had an equal chance to register and vote, if nobody who is not eligible was able to vote and all of the votes were fairly counted.

This proposal seems to me like a gimmick to get around a seriously flawed system (Electoral College), rather than just correcting the problem.

That's correct. You'll have to elaborate more on this, though, because it doesn't seem like it belongs in the same discussion:

"This would ONLY make sense if every eligible voter (same eligibility rules nationwide) had an equal chance to register and vote, if nobody who is not eligible was able to vote and all of the votes were fairly counted."

Naturally, that's the way elections should be run regardless, and the legitimacy of all election results are questionable, otherwise. This proposal addresses a completely different issue.

It's a gimmick only in that it uses a different approach to how participating states would assign their votes, while remaining completely within the rules set by the constitution. I'd argue that our current system is more "gimmicky" and that what the Republicans have been proposing is even more so.

Doing away with the electoral college altogether would be preferable, but that's not going to happen as long as so many states have an unfair advantage from it that they aren't willing to give up. Remember, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Perhaps it would be easier to adopt such an amendment if the electoral college no longer served any purpose -- and that's what would happen if this initiative went into effect.

Re: #4.2

My concern about fair voting is this and is absolutely critical to your proposal:

If a state or group of states implemented drastic voter suppression measures, that skewed the vote in those states, it might be enough to affect the national totals. As soon as one side ticked up into the majority, then there would be a cascade effect.

And that is different from now, how?

I'm not disagreeing with you about how essential a free and fair vote is to the legitimacy of an election, but it's not as if our current methods of managing electoral votes are any safeguard against those consequences.

If anything, what we have now amplifies that problem: one swing state with a suppressed or mishandled vote can change the outcome of an entire election, even when the popular vote tally is decisive. We've seen it happen!

So, of the $600 million Defense is supposed to have cut, which contracts, decisions, etc. does DOD itself say they have no need for? Which projects throughout the government has the Inspector General said could be cut or consolidated to reduce waste and duplication, thus saving money for the other $600 million? How about the proposed Medicare "cuts" that streamline service, but don't reduce care? How much real savings will be accomplished by implementing the Affordable Health Care Act? What cuts has each department throughout the government determined could be cut 1-5 %. Once those major areas are put on the plate, how much would be left for talks? Where is the bi-partisan group of 8 senators to propose a Sequester Deal? Voting Rights Deal? Jobs Creation Deal? Looks like the House and Ryan are not proposing anything, so #6, probably "running his mouth" is the likely answer to your question.

If budget cuts come down to cutting spending along Republican plans or the sequester, Dems will let the sequester kick in. Republicans are proposing all sorts of large domestic program cuts while leaving the defense budget intact. If the sequester kicks in then $500 billion comes out of domestic and the same amount for defense. But the domestic cuts protect Social Security which is off the table. Medicare benefits to individuals are protect while cuts are made to medical providers. There is no incentive for Dems to negotiate with Republicans who want all cuts from the domestic programs.

Everybody says sequester is a bad thing, but it gives Democrats more than it gives Republicans. I say if Republicans can't come up with something better in the way of revenue enhancement, let it kick in.

Hey Muggle, where I grew up all the 15 year old boys wanted rifles. I was never so happy as when my dad bought me a .22 semi-auto rifle. He kept it locked up and I could only use it when he was teaching me to shoot. Later I used it for target practice and to hunt small game. I still have that rifle. It reminds me of my father.

When my two middle sons were teenagers they shot trap on the high school team. All of my kids have taken hunter safety and gun safety courses. My granddaughter took her hunter safety course last year with her other grandfather. None of my kids are gun crazies and none of them view firearms as anything other than recreational equipment. Of course, I am from the midwest. Hunting and target shooting are very, very common recreational activities out here in fly over country.

As to the Bushmaster, there is a shooting sport called "Three Gun" that employs an AR style rifle, a modern Glock style pistol and a semi-auto shotgun. I don't know many kids involved in that sport, but the prohibiting factor is the cost of equipment and ammunition. A similar multigun sport for kids is called the Ruger Challenge. It involves a 22 target pistol and a 22 semi-auto rifle.

All of the shooting sports teach safety and are a lot of fun. Kids love them.

Gun regulation and gun safety are very serious topics requiring something other than a knee jerk reaction. Don't be as silly one direction as the NRA is the other.

@Ron, I hope you read the article. I tried to include the link, but for some reason, it doesn't show up. I'm definitely link-challenged.

I don't apologize for my belief that assault rifles don't belong in anyone's hands, let alone 8-year olds. I'm originally from upstate NY where hunting (animals) is very popular. I have no problem with that. But hunters don't need Bushmaster AR-15s to kill deer.

I do take gun regulation VERY SERIOUSLY. IMO, the assault weapons ban should never have been allowed to expire. I also believe ALL gun sellers, including "private" sellers must be required to perform background checks. If that makes me "silly", then I gladly plead guilty.

My take on the assault weapons ban is simple. There are no cuddly guns. All guns can kill. My little 22 rifle can kill. My single action cowboy revolvers can kill. So can my 1873 Winchester--which was the assault rifle of the old west. My 12 gauge shotguns punch the biggest holes of all. Bolt action deer rifles were developed from military style rifles of the early 20th century--the very rifles that were the main battle rifles during WWI and for most of the world in WWII. The 1911 45 Colt pistol was designed as a military pistol and served with the US until the 1980s. That 7 shot pistol is perfectly legal under the new New York law. Show me a cuddly gun and I will change my mind, but I think the assault weapons ban is a silly misdirection.

That said, I have no need for a magazine larger than 10 rounds. I don't know any hunter or sportsman who does.

I also believe in universal background checks. Given today's technology, that is easily enough accomplished even between friends and family members. All firearms dealers should be licensed. Firearms should be traceable by their serial numbers.

Anybody take a look at an Air-soft gun lately? They're all AR, HK, AK-style weapons and thousands of latch-key parents let their kids go to air-soft "matches" every weekend where they are fodder for the older, body-armored kids and adults. THAT is marketing more than any magazine, gun show or video-game in my book.