Stricter gun laws are a topic many people are talking about.
A number of local college presidents have signed a letter asking for more gun control, including Jane McAuliffe of Bryn Mawr College, Kathleen Ownes of Gwynedd-Mercy College, Joanne V. Creighton of Haverford College, Daniel H. Weiss of Lafayette College, Peyton Helm of Muhlenburg College, Rebecca Chopp of Swarthmore College, Bobby Fong of Ursinus College and Rev. Peter M. Donohue of Villanova University.
Pennsylvania voters think the federal government should have stricter gun laws, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University. The poll found 60 percent of those polled are in favor of stricter laws, while 5 percent thought the laws should be less strict and 32 percent thought the laws should be kept the same.
Of those polled, 95 percent favored background checks for all gun buyers.
"Pennsylvanians join voters in Virginia and New Jersey, states where Quinnipiac University has found overwhelming support for background checks for every gun purchase," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in a press release.
When it comes to assault weapons, 60 percent favored a national ban with 37 percent opposing it. The split was about the same for a national ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets with 59 percent in favor of the ban and 39 percent opposing it.
"Keystone State voters, especially voters in urban areas, seem to have had enough of gun violence’” Malloy said. “By large margins, voters don't think assault weapons belong in the hands of any gun owner. Restrict the firepower of assault weapons or ban them entirely, Pennsylvanians say.”
The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed 1,221 registered voters between January 22 and 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.
So what do you think about gun laws? Should background checks be mandatory? Should assault weapons be banned? How about high-capacity magazines? Share your thoughts in the comments area below.
Fact correction: I'm related to a current Brown RC who was taught to use "Phe", expected use it in all dealings. Perhaps I should also have included Google in with the media as another source from which second-hand brains in the absence of ideas can go keyword searching and borrow ideas from others or make lame, time-wasting attempts at fact-check-challenges to nit-pic and divert from the proferred kernel of logic that self-righteous second-handers like Sharpton, Jackson and lame-brains in this this thread have taken political correctness far past the point of reasonable. Did you have a valid point you wished to make in defense of overblown political correctness, Morgan? I failed to find one in your emotion-gasm. You seem wound a bit tight but over what, one cannot discern.
That being said, you filthy backwards conservatives who love guns and dead children and think you're smarter than ANYONE have plenty to learn, so maybe you should listen to his big words and hope a little intelligence rubs off.
Welcome to the Sane People's Society!
To morph this nation of legal gun owners into illegal criminalized gun owners would require a Constitutional Amendment. Pennsylvania legislators are not planning to infringe on PA legal gun owners. Nor are they reading these threads. Legislators in New Jersey, New York, and California welcome gun-haters and tax-spend progressive liberal socialists. They defy the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court. These states and Europe seem a better fit for some Montgo residents. Just sayin'.
You assume everyone reading this is in your bracket. The new top marginal income tax rate of 39.6% on annual income in excess of $400,000 per year will have a direct impact on about 7/10 of 1% of taxpayers. However, the income earned by these taxpayers in excess of the $400,000 threshold accounts for about 9.5% of aggregate personal income. Had Obama prevailed in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and the marginal income tax rate increased for incomes in excess of $200,000, higher marginal rates would have directly affected about 2.6% of taxpayers. The income earned by taxpayers in excess of the $200,000 threshold accounts for about 14.7% of aggregate personal income. Changes in marginal tax rates have incentive effects as well as indirect effects on workers and consumers not subject to the higher marginal rates. The economic debate over raising marginal tax rates on high income earners centers on the magnitude of the disincentives for work, saving, investment, and job creation caused by higher marginal tax rates. As high income earners change their behavior in response to the reduced incentives to earn income, all consumers and workers will be impacted by the new top marginal rate. Anyone wondering why unemployment is so high under Obama compared to past recoveries should ask the ONE PERCENTERS who are firing & cutting hours. Or Phil Mickelson. Skin in game, Morgan?
I am actually a computer program that responds to other people's posts, so I don't need no stinkin' job. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
State your point civilly and leave it at that...We will respond in kind...I have no bitterness, just stating my opinions.
Ultimately, if you can't respect the lethality of a firearm enough to put up with some DMV-grade time-wasting if it means a handful of violent douchebags have a slightly harder time buying a gun, then, no we don't care about what you feel is necessary to defend yourself from phantom bad guys that will, statistically, never attack you, and will never actually be shot by you. Until conservatives and liberals are willing to have a real conversation on the fundamental purpose of bearing arms in a civil society, this discussion is going to be mired in ineffective idiocy about arbitrary magazine sizes, assault rifle semantics, and the Constitutional right to sport-shooting as a hobby. So, it's easier to get sidetracked by the esoteric than to tackle that head on, hence this meandering thread.