When an illegal immigrant turned antisemitic terrorist tried to burn a dozen people alive, all for simply walking to remind people of the hostages still held by Hamas, we all knew the aftermath was going to be wild. I mean, the attack was absolutely insane, and it wasn't the first. It was a miracle no one was killed.
But the people using it to justify gun control are insane, and it continues.
Seriously, an attack where no firearm was used--one where it's pretty clear that an armed citizen would have ended the attack pretty damn quick--somehow is evidence we need gun control? That's the narrative being crafted by anti-gunners.
I've highlighted some of this before, but it just keeps going.
On Monday's Deadline: White House, MSNBC contributor and former Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill was eager to use the Boulder terrorist attack to promote gun control as she recalled that the perpetrator was legally barred from buying a gun because of his immigration status.
As the show devoted less than seven minutes of discussion toward the end of the show with ex-CIA director John Brennan and NBC News justice reporter Ryan Reilly, when McCaskill got her turn to speak, she spent her just over a minute of time making a lame attempt to plug gun control.
After noting that most of the charges of using molotov cocktails and a homemade flame thrower to attack victims would be prosecuted by state and local government, she added: "But he did try to buy a gun, Nicolle. He could have had an AR-15. If there wasn't a gun safety law in place that prevented him from buying a gun because of his status -- his immigration status."
Even though Republicans have never argued that illegal aliens should be allowed to purchase guns, McCaskill then took aim at opponents of gun control:
So all the people out there who say gun control -- gun safety measures don't work, we would have a different story today if he'd had an AR-15. There would have been people dead, and there would have been lots of people dead had he had a high-capacity magazine and the weapon to go with it. And so thank goodness -- I'm sorry these people were hurt -- I am so sorry they are being physically assaulted because of their religious beliefs, especially in our country.
She then concluded by emphasizing gun control: "...and I want to point out, and everyone should point out to everyone that gun safety measures work. They do save lives, and I do hope that's one of the takeaways from this tragedy."
First, if this turd had wanted a gun badly enough, he could have found someone willing to provide it. He wasn't a career criminal, though, and didn't really know where to look.
Perhaps more importantly, though, he didn't need a gun to do something absolutely terrible. He burned a dozen people alive. He damn near killed them with stuff he could get at a convenience store. This proves our argument that no matter what happens with guns, terrible people will continue to do terrible things.
What guns ultimately do, though, is allow regular folks who don't diddy-bop through life trying to figure out how to cause carnage to handle things when someone who does go through life like that decides that regular person looks like a nice target. We're not getting Kevin McCallister prep time to rig traps in our home. We have to deal with things as they are.
And honestly, trying to use this awful attack to justify gun control is disgusting.
The Democratic Party has been way too tolerant of the "Free Palestine" rhetoric coming out of their supporters and even some of their fellow Democrats to pretend they did anything good in this. They've set the stage for demonizing Israel and anyone who supports even the hostages for them to play like they're the good guys.
It doesn't help that this isn't the flex they think this is.
