Oklahoma woman who fought off intruder, a gun rights symbol, favors background checks

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/01/oklahoma-woman-who-fought-off-intruder-a-gun-rights-symbol-favors-background-checks/


Oklahoma woman who fought off intruder, a gun rights symbol, favors background checks

Posted by Greg Sargent on February 1, 2013 at 1:18 pm


Sarah Dawn McKinley, a young mother from Oklahoma, was thrust into the national spotlight this week when conservatives at the Senate gun hearing cited her run-in with intruders to make the case against Obama’s new gun proposals. On December 31, 2011, Ms. McKinley, at home with her three-month-old baby, fought off two men, killing one who was bearing a knife with her shotgun.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, conservative activists — such as Gayle Trotter — and GOP Senators cited Ms. McKinley’s case to make the case against new gun laws. Ms. McKinley’s story riveted the hearing.

I just got off the phone with Ms. McKinley, and what she told me will give a boost to people on both sides of the argument. She told me she does not favor an assault weapons ban, even though she didn’t use an assault weapon in warding off her intruders.

But Ms. McKinley said she supports the idea of expanding the background check system, telling me: “Anybody should be willing to get a background check that wants to take a gun.”

“I completely agree with background checks,” she said. “If I want a gun I have no problem getting one. I don’t see why anybody would have a problem getting a background check if they have nothing to hide.”

snip//

As I’ve been saying, the expanded background check is the most important proposal on the table right now — it’s arguably more important than the assault ban. The fact that Ms. McKinley supports it — even though she is widely cited by gun rights advocates as a poster woman for their cause, and even as she does not support the assault ban — alone shows what a no-brainer this proposal really is. Having fought off a home invasion herself with a gun, she does not appear to see expanded background checks as a barrier to acquiring weapons for legitimate self defense — or as an infringement on people’s rights.

[Bay Boy]

1. I don't like this reasoning:

"I don’t see why anybody would have a problem getting a background check if they have nothing to hide.”
I just hear it too often.
Cop says "Can I search your vehicle?"
If I say "no" he says "Why not if you have nothing to hide?"

And by the way I'm in favor of private sale background checks.

[raidert05]

2. Agreed with 100%

[krispos42]

3. I also have no problem with universal background checks

As long as they are fast and cheap. And no permanent record; otherwise it's de facto registration.