On Monday, I wrote about the horrific terror attack in Boulder, Colorado. As of the latest count I saw, 12 people were injured, including a Holocaust survivor, and I noted that this is the reason people need to carry guns, especially Jewish people.

I think it's a no-brainer. 

I mean, you've got a politically motivated individual using Molotov cocktails to try to kill a dozen people by burning them alive, so it's reasonable to think that people with guns might have prevented that.

Oh, contraire, it seems. 

No, according to some, what this illustrates is the need for gun control.

First, Rep. Jamie Raskin:

Jamie Raskin somehow managed to twist a t*rror attack with Molotov cocktails into a pitch for gun control legislation. pic.twitter.com/7fyvJEI4SH

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 2, 2025

We've got an illegal immigrant using commonly accessible materials to burn innocent people (allegedly). The flamethrower he alleged used was described by NBC News as "makeshift," which means it wasn't an off-the-shelf, purpose-built flamethrower, which aren't regulated. 

So what the hell does any of this have to do with guns? He reportedly tried to get a gun and was denied, which sounds like the laws on the books worked just fine, so why do we need more because of this turdstain?

But Raskin wasn't alone in this.

Oh no, that would be too easy.

As Ed Morissey writes over at our sister site, Hot Air:

Did David Axelrod address any of that? In the very next breath, Tapper hands it off to the Democrat strategist, who immediately wins his award for Non Sequitur of the Week ... the Month ... the Year ... and maybe a Lifetime Achievement Award In The Field Of Non Sequituring. This is not in the clip, but it comes immediately after Jennings' observation:

TAPPER: David Axelrod?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. No, listen, Jake, I'm the son of a Jewish refugee who escaped, his home was blown up and he escaped from actually Ukraine back in the day and came here to seek refuge. And so, you know, I -- I feel very, very deep. I'm not -- I haven't come to this lately. I feel very deeply about this issue. And I think questions will be asked about how this guy tried to get a gun.

Ahem. What in the world does gun control have to do with the attack in Boulder? Mohamed Soliman didn't use a gun to attack Jews peacefully demonstrating in Boulder -- he used gasoline and arson. Axelrod even admits that Soliman failed to get the gun, but refuses to address the issue of terrorism:

Now, the whole thing about him trying to get a gun probably will invoke some questions, but it shouldn't. Anyone can walk into a gun store and try to buy a gun. There's no way to prevent that unless you try to make every gun store like Mexico's, where they're on military bases and you need reams of paperwork filed just to be granted permission to walk into the store.

And that's never going to happen here.

But Axelrod is trying to present this as some kind of gun thing when it's not.

Boulder actually showed how violent, dangerous people will find a way to hurt the innocent, even without a gun. We're not about to start regulating gasoline, glass bottles, or rags. 

Between him and Raskin, they're trying to make this about our right to keep and bear arms, all while ignoring how this undermines the entire argument behind gun control made after other mass casualty attacks. 

Expect to see more of this.