Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raoul Duke" data-source="post: 2091207" data-attributes="member: 27529"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/01/oklahoma-woman-who-fought-off-intruder-a-gun-rights-symbol-favors-background-checks/" target="_blank">Oklahoma woman who fought off intruder, a gun rights symbol, favors background checks</a>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 didnt 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 dont see why anybody would have a problem getting a background check if they have nothing to hide.Ms. McKinley herself didnt get a background check to procure her shotgun. But she said she inherited it from her late husband which means she likely would have been exempted from the background check system under the current proposal, which would exempt family members. And at any rate, given her willingness to undergo one herself, shed presumably pass and be able to buy the sort of gun shed used to defend herself.Ms. McKinley said she favored background checks, even if it didnt necessarily guarantee that criminals would never get guns. I dont see how thats going to completely stop criminals from getting guns, but I do agree with background checks.However, Ms. McKinley does not favor the assault weapons ban on the grounds that it violates peoples rights, though she suggested she wouldnt need one herself for self defenseI dont agree with them banning any guns, she said. They are going to start with one and then they will go to something else. I have no use for an assault weapon. At the same time, I do have the right to decide whether I have one or not."Ms. McKinley also said: If somebody wants to own one of those guns they have a right to, as long as they pass a background check.Ms. McKinley also echoed the language of conservative activist Trotter, who said assault weapons constitute a gender equalizer.There are a couple of issues with this article that bother me:1.) The article is somewhat misleading as to whether Ms. Mckinley supports the current system of background checks or expanding background checks from how they are currently handled. she does not appear to see expanded background checks as a barrier to acquiring weapons for legitimate self defense or as an infringement on peoples rightsThe author makes many assumptions and presumptions about her answers.2.) What expanded background check proposal is being referenced?Ms. McKinley herself didnt get a background check to procure her shotgun. But she said she inherited it from her late husband which means she likely would have been exempted from the background check system under the current proposal, which would exempt family members.That is not the case with background checks for sales and transfers under Feinstein's bill. Details of any other bills are extremely scarce:<a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/bipartisan-effort-to-expand-background-checks-quietly-gains-steam/" target="_blank">Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam</a> How can the author make this assertion about exempting family members with any certainty or credibility?</blockquote>

Verification