The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms notes that Jonathan Rowan, who murdered Rebecca Griego at the UW Monday, was an illegal immigrant, protected by Seattle's sanctuary law:
Seattle newspapers reported Thursday morning that gunman Jonathan Rowan had been living in this country illegally for more than ten years. Stopped for drunken driving last June 30 by Seattle police, his residency status could have been determined, were it not for Seattle's ridiculous policy. Generically called "Sanctuary Laws," they tie the hands of police and allow foreign nationals a free pass to stay here illegally.A P-I article on Rowan is here. Seattle's sanctuary law is Ordinance Number 121063. Clowncilmembers who voted for the bill and are still on the Clowncil are: Conlin, Drago, Licata, McIver and Steinbrueck
That fact that this illegal aalien committed a murder then shot himself is another testament to the far left's assinine policies. The Seattle leaders who voted to allow illegals to have sacntuary in the city should be held accountable in the death of the innocent woman.
I'll be the Seattle group of elitis trial lawyers won't birng suit in the dead woman's name. No, attorneys like Bill Gates' dad are too busy fighting to allow the government to seize one's wealth when he or she dies to take a case so "trivial."
Plus they'll never attack their own.
Example:
Ethanol, environmentally friendly fuel made from Corn, Corn prices go up, Tortilla prices go up, people who use cheap tortilla's as a staple of their diet can no longer afford tortilla's.
Lesson:
By saving the earth your really making poor people in third world countries starve.
Oh no, It's the moonbat liberals that killed her not the fact that a little common sense gun security could have saved her just as easily.
This article is just another chance for Conservatives to point fingers while not actually working to solve the problem. Typical.
The problem isn't guns anyway. He could have killed her with a knife, or a baseball bat, or by slitting her throat with the sharpened edge of an "inconvenient truth" DVD. If someone is hell bent to kill, a gun isn't the only way to do it.
Posted by: Johnny on April 5, 2007 04:47 PMIt turns out this guy was picked up on a DUI a few weeks ago. It turns out that ICE had an arrest warrant for this guy(for over staying his visa by ten years)so he could be deported, but the Seattle PD could not find this information out because they are forbidden to check the immigration status of those they pick up for a crime. In other words, if they had been able to check his immigration status they would have found out about the warrant and he would have been deported and not even been in the country to USE his GUN to kill this woman.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 5, 2007 04:56 PMAllan: I doubt a lawuit would go anywhere, since the fact that he committed a murder was not a forseeable consequence of being an illegal alien. It wasn't even a forseeable consequence of violating probation. As policy, it makes sense to enforce all laws because if someone breaks one law, they're more likely to break other laws. But as a legal matter, I don't think you can tie his immigration and parole violations to murder. (I'm not a lawyer, though.)
This guy did a horrible thing. There were warnings that he might murder which the system failed to heed -- apparently the UW didn't follow all its procedures for dealing with threats, and apparently the victim decided against filing charges once (which you can't blame her for, especially in the context that she did pursue many other legal options against him). The most important thing we can learn is how we could have heeded these warnings better.
Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2007 05:34 PMEh ... Stefan ... I hate to contradict you, but there are plenty of white Americans who commit horrendous crimes such as murder.
Maybe we should ask these white folk to go back to Europe where they belong?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 5, 2007 06:57 PMSecular Progressives like DM preach anarchy and are a menace to American society. There is nothing racist about this - whether they are Mexican, Hungarian or British doesn't matter. An illegal alien is an illegal alien. Just another example of intellectual dishonesty from DM.
Posted by: KS on April 5, 2007 07:04 PMStefan et al- How exactly would these police inquiries work? When the police stop someone, would they run an immigration check every time? Typically suspicion is aroused only when someone doesn't speak good English, but that wouldn't have caught this guy.
Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2007 07:10 PM> There is nothing racist about this - whether they are Mexican, Hungarian or British doesn't matter. An illegal alien is an illegal alien.
Like Hell race doesn't matter in this issue!
The whole "illegal immigrant" issue is racism.
Today has been a banner day for racism at SoundPolitics.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 5, 2007 07:15 PMMatthews- You are a liar !
Posted by: KS on April 5, 2007 07:19 PM> Actually this criminal was from England -- not your stereotypical illegal alien.
Thanks for pointing that out, Bruce. I am not familiar with the particulars of this case.
I object to Stefan representing this case -- a criminal act -- as relating in any way to the illegal alien issue.
Anyone who two eyes should know that criminal acts are committed by American citizens, naturalized citizens, resident aliens and illegal aliens. There is no distinction and therefore the status of this particular criminal is irrelevant.
Stefan desire to exploit this tragedy as a means of attacking the "illegal aliens" is unfortunate.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 5, 2007 07:22 PMThe best way to prevent violent crimes is to focus on people who show signs of committing violent crimes, which Rowan did. But some people will use any opportunity they can find to bash immigration, just as some people will use every snowstorm to deny global warming.
Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2007 07:28 PMOne more point concerning Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
As a red-blooded American waving the flag, I must explicitly express my disapproval of the above organization.
I don't own any guns. I don't want to own any guns. And, I prefer that my fellow Americans don't own any guns either.
You gun-owners scare me. I don't trust you or your weapons.
I would prefer to live in a nation without any guns.
I hope you don't mind, especially since I am here waving the flag.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 5, 2007 07:30 PMI am Glad we Gun Owners Scare YOU !!!!
Be Afraid..... But more importantly, I suggest you Move to Another Country where perhaps Guns aren't an issue. You see, we have had the RIGHT to own them for years, you are living in the wrong country buddy.
Maybe your an illegal "alien"?
Hope you don't have a girly friend, she may shoot you!!!
> I am Glad we Gun Owners Scare YOU !!!!
Your need for a gun is what scares me, Chris, not your ownership of a gun.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 5, 2007 07:57 PMI need a gun for protection from people like you. Maybe you can explain the reason for the following:
"A felon who didn't report to the Department of Corrections after being conditionally released from jail in February was arrested Wednesday in connection with the alleged rape of a former girlfriend and assault on her 3-month-old baby in Federal Way.
Thomas Bienville, 36, who has convictions for rape, assault and attempting to elude police, was one of 82 felons the Department of Corrections (DOC) released on Feb. 23 because of overcrowding at the two King County jails."
The physco in the topic of this thread is another reason I NEED a gun. Why don't you just ARM UP and protect us all from our own Goverment's Lack of Protection.
That right, you live in Florida, like you really have a lot of clout, or even an opinion of how we live here in the NW.
Bug Off Buddy, and take care of your own down there......
Gee, and you sheep wonder why this girl is dead?
'Pay your taxes, watch your idiot boxes, and shut up. Don't you dare get any ideas of manhood in your mind.' Da Mayor's Thoughts
Posted by: Jericho on April 5, 2007 08:28 PMIf you want to live in a country where your fellow citizens aren't armed (except for under very, very tight controls), may I suggest England? Ol' Blighty has got some of the most stringent gun-control laws anywhere.
If that's too far for you, then New Jersey or Washington DC might be decent second choices.
Say what???
The guy was an illegal alien for God's sake.
Object all you want....but if Rowan wasn't here in this Country, that young lady would be alive today.
And your argument for trigger locks sparing this woman's life is a prizewinning dumbass comment- even for you. Do you think that guy was going to buy a trigger lock for the gun he fully intended to use on the victim?
You are as dumb as a bag of cinders, Dave. Today was a banner day for idiots, and you are the official spokesman.
Dork.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on April 5, 2007 08:55 PMSay what???
The guy was an illegal alien for God's sake.
Object all you want....but if Rowan wasn't here in this Country, that young lady would be alive today.
Anyway, this example shows you that gun control laws simply do not work. Under Washington state law, illegal aliens are absolutely prohibited from having firearms -- it is a felony offense. Legal aliens can get firearms only by getting a special permit from the Department of Licensing, and verifying that they do not have a disqualifying criminal background in their native land.
This man got a firearm, even though it was illegal. And he stayed in this country also, even though that was illegal. At the same time, University of Washington rules prohibited his victim from carrying a firearm to defend herself.
It is nice to have people like David Mathews, who want gun control laws to keep law-abiding citizens from having firearms. At the same time, Mathews is unwilling to deport illegal aliens -- or even to disarm illegal aliens who illegally have firearms.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 5, 2007 09:53 PMGuns kill people, so we need to pass more laws to protect us from them.
Of course, we still have illegal aliens - implicitly stating they are breaking the law - and those laws aren't followed too well...
The freak should have been deported. The whole "sanctuary" thing is a sham, a feel-good "we're nice people!" movement by the left.
If you want to be a "nice person" then support those who come here LEGALLY. Uphold the rule of law. And work to see those who break the law feel the full effect of the penalties...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 5, 2007 09:58 PMThe way I interpret this is that does not mean they cannot ask of their legal status if they are stopped for speeding or another offense. This law can be misinterpreted this law - I know that MSM does.
Clowncil indeed ! On the face this is a useless law - promoted by the politically correct left thought Police. This law needs to be overturned by enacted of a new law, based on initiative - because the politicians are too gutless to ever want to change this law. This reads like the law on racial profiling or hate crimes - superfluous legislation for the good of lawyers and the detriment of society. In other words, screw you if you dislike illegal immigration in Seattle !
Posted by: KS on April 5, 2007 10:17 PMYes, he stole it from someone who presumably had it legally. If that person hadn't been allowed to keep one, Rebecca Griego would still be alive.
Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2007 10:20 PMOn the contrary, one could argue that the very illegality of his immigration status was partly responsible for driving him to commit this crime. It surely increased his sense of desperation.
Posted by: Another POV on April 5, 2007 10:28 PMI am almost certain that this illegal immigrant's hard on for Rebecca Griego was a result of his being here a few years TOO LONG!!!
I think about my citizen status on Minute by Minute Basis. ( I was born here )
I am sure the Rapist from previous thread was "pushed" to Rape and torture his ex girlfriend and 3 month old baby because of his "social" life. It must have been driving him crazy.....
Just like the english dude......
Posted by: Chris on April 5, 2007 10:42 PMPosted by Bruce at April 5, 2007 10:20 PM
Bruce, lets take away alllllll the guns and see who is safer.
Typical of you to say that Rebecca would be alive today if the THIEVE who STOLE the GUN hadnt been ABLE to STEAL the GUN.
WOW..... with your analogy, where do you buy your drugs......
Posted by: chris on April 5, 2007 10:50 PMDave probably has the same doctor that Anna Nicole Smith had.
Posted by: Janet on April 5, 2007 11:57 PMIf the smugly liberal city of Seattle didn't have this ridiculous "sanctuary" law, this wack-job Limey cretin would very likely have been deported, and Ms. Griego would be alive today.
I also think that her family should sue the City of Seattle up one side and down the other over this ludicrous policy that resulted in her death.
Posted by: Carsten on April 6, 2007 12:02 AM> Liberal policies way too often lead to death.
Except for Iraqi civilians and American soldiers.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 6, 2007 03:32 AMGood idea. Let's not just ask them, let's make them. Starting with you.
Don't bother responding to this post scumbag, I really don't care what arrogant bullshit you have to say. You are irrelevant.
Posted by: REBEL on April 6, 2007 06:09 AMLiberal policies way too often lead to death.
Except for Iraqi civilians and American soldiers....
Have you forgotten Clinton and his peace keeping attempts...Somalia, Bosnia...need I go on?
We have lost many American Soldiers to liberal policies...but that is not the point of this thread. Again, you digress.
I do appreciate the desperation in you comments as of late. They are not the long, meandering thoughts you used to post. Now they come across as if all the opposition and common sense arguements thrown back at your crap is starting to crack your tough, crazy-liberal skin.
Liberal policies way too often lead to death.
__________________________________________________
Shall we try WWII & Nam also. You dumb twit.
2. Rebel
Buddy I'm with you, kick this 2nd grade fool out of here. Let him go to KOS. He's their kind anyway.
April 5, 2007 As of August 2006, cities and counties that have sanctuary policies include:
Anchorage, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Chandler, AZ
Phoenix, AZ2
Fresno, CA
Los Angeles, CA
National City, CA4
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL3
Cicero, IL
Cambridge, MA
Orleans, MA
Portland, ME
Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD
Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI
Minneapolis, MN
Newark, NJ1
Trenton, NJ1
Durham, NC
Albuquerque, NM
Aztec, NM
Rio Arriba, County, NM
Sante Fe, NM
New York, NY
Ashland, OR
Gaston, OR
Marion County, OR
Austin, TX
Houston, TX
Katy, TX
Seattle, WA
Madison, WI
Currently there are two statewide policies regarding sanctuary for illegal aliens:
In May 2003, Alaska's state legislature passed a joint resolution prohibiting state agencies from using resources or institutions for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.
In 1987, Oregon passed a law that prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending foreign citizens based on violation of federal immigration law. Oregon law, however, does permit their law enforcement officers to exchange information with federal authorities to verify the immigration status of an individual arrested for criminal offenses.
Sources:
Congressional Research Service, "Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement," Aug. 2006: http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0912-crs.pdf
1. "Coalition seeks immigrant sanctuaries; services wouldn't hinge on legal status." Asbury Park Press 1 Mar. 2007.
"Havens for illegals; Advocates recruit 'sanctuary cities'." The Record 1 Mar. 2007.
2. "Phoenix residents want to end 'sanctuary' status." Washington Times 28 May 2006.
3. "Preparations underway for immigrant march." ABC7 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=4128549
4. "National City named sanctuary city." San Diego Union-Tribune 1 Oct. 2006.
Now isn't it funny, many of these cities want uncle sam to pay them for these people because they are driving health cost and other services threw the roof.
Can we say STUPID!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 6, 2007 07:36 AMAre you saying that because a lot of cities do it, that makes it right?
San Francisco and DC have banned guns. Yet you have a greater chance of getting killed by gunfire in DC than on the front lines in Iraq.
Question - which is more dangerous, a house with a gun inside or a house with a swimming pool?
Answer - 100 children drown in pools each year, way more than die from accidental gunshots.
Posted by: dan on April 6, 2007 08:03 AMTrigger lock laws are also a waste of time. Anyone who has stolen a gun can easily remove them.
Plus, in the event that I do need to use a firearm for home protection, I'm not going to be fiddling around to find the key to my trigger lock.
Posted by: Palouse on April 6, 2007 08:54 AMNow it's on Race, Wars and then Guns.
WOW dave, the man of the world. NOT!
He sure talks a bunch, but knows zip.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 6, 2007 09:11 AMSo, do you believe that there is magical utopia where no social predators exist that America should emulate? It ain't ever going to happen except in your drug induced dreams. You might want to keep in mind that it is the Second Amendment that helps to insure your right to spout hatred of America. Why don't you try doing some research on the number of crimes that are thwarted each year by law-abiding gun owners?
I once listened to a crackpot coworker rant that all guns should be confiscated from private citizens. When he was finished, I asked him the following question, "Do you think that some of Ted Bundy's victims might still be alive had they been in possession of firearms?" He flew into a purple faced, spit-slinging rage and shouted, "I don't give a damn." This immediately led to the conclusion that I needed to start packing to protect myself against HIM.
God created man...Sam Colt made them equal. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Old sayings, but true never the less.
That's true, I will agree with you on that. Yet a using a gun is a whole lot easier. She would at least had a fighting chance with any of the other objects you mention. How many people a year commit murder/suicide by bat?
Trigger locks might be a joke (don't own a gun, so I don't know), maybe he should have kept it in a locked box. Either way the guy was able to get a hold of it and use it to kill his ex-GF. Proper gun storing procedures on the part of the gun owner could have as easily prevented this death.
NW Denizen @ 55
Do you think that some of Ted Bundy's victims might still be alive had they been in possession of firearms?"
All of Ted Bundy's victims went with him willingly to help him. When they were not looking he would club them and restrain them. I fail to see how having a gun help in this situation.
"Proper" storage???? He Stole the friggin gun....Then he used it to kill his GF and self....
If he Hadn't Stolen the Gun, maybe she would be alive today.
If the Cops would have sent him packing home the day he was arrested for DUI, he wouldn't have Stolen the gun, and she would be alive today.
Geeeezzzzz the Gun didn't kill her, the KILLER killed her. The City of Seattle killed her, because of their Santuary Law.
Posted by: Chris on April 6, 2007 11:45 AM"When they were not looking he would club them and restrain them. I fail to see how having a gun help in this situation."
Hmmm, I don't know how you can be absolutely sure of this unless you were there. Anyway, pick a name...John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas. How about Gary Ridgway. If you still don't get the picture, then I don't know what to tell you.
I'mm assuming you're a Libertarian. Here's an equation youshould commit to memeory:
More Guns = Less Crime
Posted by: Libertarian on April 6, 2007 12:37 PMThat's true, but when was the last time you read about a 'suicide by bat'? Like a siad, at least with a bat she would have had a fighting chance. Can't say that with a gun.
Hmmm, I don't know how you can be absolutely sure of this unless you were there.
I wasn't there but that what Ted Bundy said, since he had no reason to lie. A girl who survived pretty much said the same thing.
Jeffrey Dahmer
You suggesting that 14 year olds should pack heat?
Geeeezzzzz the Gun didn't kill her, the KILLER killed her. The City of Seattle killed her, because of their Santuary Law.
Ummm, the bullets fired from the gun killed her.
What makes you think the city would have actually deported him if there was no sanctuary law? Likely would have sent him to trial first.
Looks to me like your searching for a scapegoat case to support the repealing of sanctuary policies rather than caring about the crime itself.
The Trouble With Islam
Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.
BY TAWFIK HAMID
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a
short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?"
Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike
for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored
Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world.
Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the
gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal
code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian
mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would
expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these
complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the
West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In
this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and
not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what
they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's
second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane
teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into
that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical
Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological
"rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi
Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching
accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be
killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate
non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It
exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The
near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric
practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of
approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly
challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal
branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential
theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist
counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and
working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western
intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become
obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners
obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find
socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty,
colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is
there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way
for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious
beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under
identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic
campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic
extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot
convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000
innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their
slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between
Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
Western feminists
duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but
seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers
of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and
genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism
further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the
war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap
innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings,
millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist
organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were
behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example
sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem.
During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons
in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by
Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots
erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as
weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is
a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that
it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's
enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal
system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of
Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the
death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for
human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the
West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless.
Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and
scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components
in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal
Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When
Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually
endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of
suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of
relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality
of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group,
is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
Uh-huh, that fact does not stack up so well when investigated. Ohio seems to have lax gun laws but Cleavland (a city of comparable size) seems to have a much higher crime rate than Seattle does.
Yet Washington has stricter gun lawns that Ohio according to the Brady Campaign. Wash / Ohio
Cleveland Violent Crime: 1398.2/100,000 people
Seattle Violent Crime: 709.4/100,000 people
I'm not against guns, I'm just against poor gun laws that don't require training and proper storage of the weapon. If your responsible enough to own it, you should be responsible enough to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.
Why should a law abiding citizen have to compromise his safety in order to accomodate criminals? Guns in locked boxes and guns with trigger locks are as good as hockey pucks in a situation where you might need them.
The problem was not the origin of the gun. If he hadn't stolen it, he could have just as easily bought one illegally on the streets.
Posted by: Palouse on April 6, 2007 02:13 PMWhy should innocent lab abiding citizens be killed due to gross negligence on the part of gun owners?
Guns in locked boxes and guns with trigger locks are as good as hockey pucks in a situation where you might need them.
Why don't you use 'a knife, or a baseball bat, or the sharpened edge of an "inconvenient truth" DVD' to defend yourself then? If someone is hell bent to defend themselves, a gun isn't the only way to do it. =)
The problem was not the origin of the gun. If he hadn't stolen it, he could have just as easily bought one illegally on the streets.
Can you go buy a gun on the streets of Seattle, Palouse? Have you tried? I can't imagine it's as easy as stealing one from the guy you stayed with who can't recall if he left it on the nightstand or not.
The guys not a hardened criminal with connections to gun runners. He seems to be a dopey white guy with a serious anger problem.
Oh, I get it now, thanks, he wasn't a hardened criminal, he simply had an anger problem and it was his roommate's fault that he happended to have an evil gun. Continue that line of reasoning and the girl probably deserved to die too.
How old are you?
Posted by: dan on April 6, 2007 03:39 PMhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497
Posted by: TechnoMom on April 6, 2007 04:01 PMThe evil Seattle sanctuary law prevented a man with no criminal record from getting deported therfore he was let go and able to stalk and kill an innocent woman.
Get a clue already!
he had been stopped by the police, 4 times, even though he may not have had a criminal record
get a clue!
and he was here ILLEGALY. do you want me to break down that word for you so that you can understand it?
get a clue!
Posted by: dan on April 6, 2007 04:30 PMGlad to see that the conservation so far has revealed in explicit fashion the ugly racist underbelly of this whole subject matter.
Technomom: If you are so upset by the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants ...
Need I say more?
If SoundPolitics wants to represent itself officially as a racist discussion board, go ahead. Suit yourself.
Do you people really believe that the Mexicans (illegal or otherwise) are more dangerous than the Americans? Statistics don't bear that out, but bigots seldom worry about facts.
You hate the Mexicans not because they are illegal but because they are Mexican. Their skin isn't white enough, they speak another language, they have an entirely different culture, and they outcompete obese Americans.
I now realize that this whole exercise has nothing whatsoever to do with the unfortunate lady who died, but this is a nationwide attack by conservatives against Mexicans on behalf of bigotry and prejudice:
Geraldo Rivera exposes Bill O'Reilly as a Bigot. 04/06/2007
These attacks on the Mexicans are a dramatic demonstration of America's decline. Too bad that in the vast majority of cases Mexicans are better than Americans and, more importantly, there are millions of American citizens of Mexican descent.
In other words: You conservatives are engaging in a war which you have already lost.
But what difference does it make since the Republican party is heading to absolute minority status in Washington, D.C. by 2009?
please shut up. this guy was a white ENGLISH psychopath, here ILLEGALLY.
Go to Mexico. There's no global warming there.
Posted by: dan on April 6, 2007 04:34 PM"Illegal alien" is a Republican code-work for anti-Mexican bigotry.
When a bigot says "illegal alien" all the other bigots know exactly what is being spoken about.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 6, 2007 04:43 PMyou are the only one on this thread to even mention
MEXICAN. You and your other fellow travellers are the only racists on this site. You're just really good at convincing yourselves that you're not.
Did you watch the Bill O'Reilly video that I linked in post # 73.
Watch it and tell me what you learn.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 6, 2007 05:00 PMYou could be classed as anti-Republican and anti-American bigot and trailer trash to boot.
Posted by: KS on April 6, 2007 05:50 PMPlease post ONE thing that Bill O'Reilly or ANYONE here - other than you - has posted that is false, and thus could be considered a racist statement. Just one.
Barring that, you prove YOURSELF to be an outright racist in your pre-occupation with race and self-loathing.
Get a clue, you bigoted, race-baiting, anti-human, lie-spewing piece of trash...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 6, 2007 06:16 PMWhere is the Illegal Mexican in this story???? There isn't one
I thought the guy was "white" as snow, and here for 10 friggin years too long.
Amazing how illegals can live in this country that long without being caught.
David, I think you should check your Birth Certificate. In fact, maybe you and Cato are Siblings......
Posted by: chris on April 6, 2007 06:33 PM> Where is the Illegal Mexican in this story????
Okay, Chris, let's perform a little thought experiment:
If America began cracking down upon the "illegal immigrants" which population would be most impacted by this action?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 6, 2007 08:17 PMTo answer your question......
The Rebbeca Griego's of this country would be affected in a very positive way. They would be alive to live in THEIR country.
Those are the people who YOU really don't give a shit about......
Take a hike, head west, and go south....
Posted by: Chris on April 6, 2007 10:09 PMHaving your gun in a drawer in your own home is not "gross negligence" by ANY stretch of the imagination. That person has broken NO LAW.
Stop blaming people who had NOTHING to do with the crime - the people who were victimized by a thief.
Why don't you use 'a knife, or a baseball bat, or the sharpened edge of an "inconvenient truth" DVD' to defend yourself then?
I choose not to defend myself with a bat or whatever, and I'm 100% certain that the second amendment will never be repealed, so that won't change.
Can you go buy a gun on the streets of Seattle, Palouse?
I can get a gun by tomorrow, and not you or any law enforcement person would know a thing about it. It's ridiculously easy if you know where to look.
Posted by: Palouse on April 7, 2007 09:01 AMWhere do you look Palouse? Wade's Gun Shop? Bob's Hunting/Fishing/Tackle store? Buy one from your friend?
If you know so much about illegal gun running why don't you report these criminals to the police and potentially save countless lives?
I'm 100% certain that the second amendment will never be repealed,
I am too, I'm not suggesting it should be repealed. I'm just saying gun owners should be more responsible with their weapons and not leave them in places where suicidal whack jobs can pick them up without even knowing it's missing. Had he been a better/more responsible gun owner this murder may not have happened.