Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wants you to stop talking about the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, so he can talk about gun control. But the Boulder attack should end the gun control debate for good.

After an illegal immigrant from Egypt lit multiple pro-Israel protesters on fire with Molotov cocktails, Raskin decided to pivot away from the obvious antisemitism to lecture people about gun control. “We are still in the midst of a gun violence epidemic,” Raskin said. “So we need to be acting with due concern for human life. I mean, this is why, of course, we have been fighting for universal, violent criminal background checks. We are for a ban on military-style assault weapons in the country. You know, our lax gun laws are a danger to everybody in America.”

Recommended Stories

• Democrats' commitment to identity politics is a ticket to oblivion
• Drones — the new war machines
• Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff shows his disdain for military appreciation

This is all completely irrelevant. The pro-Palestinian terrorist in Boulder did not use a gun, “military-style assault weapon,” or otherwise. He would never have passed any sort of background check because he is an illegal immigrant. “Lax gun laws” have nothing to do with Molotov cocktails. This was a targeted, antisemitic attack from an antisemitic terrorist who has consumed left-wing narratives about Israel and “Palestine.”

If anything, the opposite is the problem in Boulder, which has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Colorado is becoming one of the worst states for legal gun owners. Boulder restricts concealed carry in and around certain buildings, including courthouses. The protest and subsequent attack took place outside the Boulder City Courthouse.

BOULDER SUSPECT CHARGED WITH FEDERAL HATE CRIME FOR TARGETING ‘ZIONIST GROUP’

How do you think this scenario would have played out in, say, Texas, had a terrorist pulled out a Molotov cocktail and prepared to throw it at protesters? Do you think it’s a coincidence that this attack and the shooting of two Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C., both took place in cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in the country? The terrorist in the Washington, D.C., shooting even flew into the city with his gun so he could hit a soft target.

What Raskin is arguing is that a terrorist attack where no gun was used is proof that we need to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns. He is effectively arguing that it would be better if the protesters were even further restricted from protecting themselves. So long as Democrats fight against deporting illegal immigrants, especially those with terrorist sympathies, any attempts by them to push gun control should only be met with this story. If Democrats can’t explain why it was better that the protesters could not defend themselves, there is no debate to be had.