Previous Post
Next Post

In the eyes of those running the Mayors Against Illegal Guns ‘No More Names’ bus tour, Boston Marathon bomber and part time speedbump, Tamerlan Tsaraev was a victim of gun violence. “During the rally, supporters of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns read the names of those “killed with guns” since the Dec. 14 Newtown shootings — and Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name was memorialized among the names of the dead.” You’ll remember, of course, that the deceased member of the Flying Tsarnaev Brothers troupe was killed in a shootout with police. So that must mean . . .

…that the people in the Joseph P. Murrah federal building killed by Timothy McVeigh were casualties of vehicular manslaughter. Does the NTSB include those murdered on 9/11 in their airline crash statistics? Surely Mayor Mike’s minions would have it that way. Did they also memorialize Adam Lanza as a (self-inflicted) victim of a senseless shooting, too?

The anti-gun group’s since apologized, but it’s clear that in their view, Bonnie and Clyde were just a couple of mixed up kids cut down in their prime by crazy gun-wielding (LEO) thugs. What about it? Was Tamerlan a victim?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Maybe, just maybe given the number of people celebrating over his little brothers capture is a glimmer of hope that big brother being a “victim” will pi&& a lot of people off against MAIG

      • Why would they do this on purpose? The guy’s name is too recognizable, and he was killed by LE. It does not support their position, at all.

        • One is too many… well, that’s what they say at least. I think they really mean it. Guns make good people do evil things… right?

      • I think they bought a list of everyone who died from gunshot injuries, and didn’t bother to check the background on any of them. Or read the list beforehand. Or think.

        • Per Fox News, Bret, has got it right. They compiled a list and apparently failed to notice Tsaraev was on the list. “Clerical error”….so the Left Loonies will just dismiss it and go right back to plotting to control us.

        • Either that, or some OCD member saw that it was an odd number and added Tsarnaev to make it an even one.

      • Someone with more time should vet the whole list. I’d be willing to better that it is indiscriminate as to the cause of their demise (other than the firearm, of course). How many gang-bangers and other perps are on the list – suicides too I reckon.

  2. Maig and kapo bloomberg are nucking futs. But we already knew that. I wonder if any of the other names killed by gun violence were criminals killed in dgu’s by their intended victims? How many gangbangers involved in their illegal activities are counted by these cretins?

  3. Liberal mindset at work, criminals are victims of the “gun” culture. Lawful gun owners are the real criminals in their sick twisted minds.

  4. Their game of obfuscation has blown up in their face.
    It usually works in their favor to say “x number of children die at the barrel of a gun” when X includes 16-25 year old gang members. It works against them when one of those X’s happens to be high enough profile to stand out as a blatant caveat even the most hardened dullard cant ignore.

  5. So, attacking the cops, then getting shot by the cops, which is their job at that point, makes him a victim of gun violence…making guns bad?

    I thought it was apparently ok if the cops do it, now not even the cops can rightfully use guns.

  6. Come on now! MIAG needs as many bodies as possible. If you act now they’ll also give you a free imported “limited edition” body to dance on, and a childrens size bloodied t-shirt to wave. But you got to act now, supplies are unlimited… If you ignore the lie behind the message.

  7. I thought at the point in which you become a criminal, you have given up your ability to become a “victim”…suppose anybody will do for those MAIG chaps…

  8. Why would we expect them to tell the difference between a mass murderer and their victim?

    They can’t tell the difference between me and a criminal.

    They can’t tell the difference between a police officer stopping a bad guy and a gang-banger shooting a kid.

    They just want numbers and DRAMA and The Horror THE HORROR!!!!

  9. Everyday I think the anti’s have finally said/done the stupidest thing humanly possible. Everyday I am wrong…

  10. That would make the Boston PD perpetrators of gun violence. If Bloomberg really wants to get rid of this type of gun violence why hasn’t he called for those perpetrators to be punished yet?

  11. In a madhouse where the Fort Hood massacre is considered “workplace violence,” is this really so surprising?

    I suppose the dead and injured at the Boston Marathon suffered “fireworks injuries.”

    It’s sad, really. This used to be a pretty good country.

  12. By the definitions used by the banners, yes he was a victim. EVERYONE who dies by gunshot is a victim of gun violence, doncha know, including all of the suicides. Haven’t you heard them using 30,000 people killed each year by “gun violence”? If we eliminated all those who self-destructed and those who lived and died by the sword, there wouldn’t be enough bodies to make their story line so dramatic.

  13. People are missing that Mumbles is mayor of boston and in MAIG. . . . . this is priceless. If he doesn’t resign and denounce Bloomberg, well, then he approves of the insult against his city. Baam!

  14. A very nice looking Asian lady was just laying it down about this on fox. I despise the msm but that was a nice catch on the channel flip.

    She nailed it by the way

  15. He most assuredly was not. Regardless of the fact that he was shot, he does not meet the definition of what they were trying to do, however misguided it may have been. Their goal is to say “if not for guns, this person would still be alive,” and I don’t believe that’s true in his case. One way or another, he was going down.

  16. I’m willing to accept the clerical error explanation for this one, at least until I’ve finished my coffee. Not even MAIG could be so stupid as to run this up and think anyone would salute. That said, I suspect that deep down there are quite a few antis who would consider any ‘gun death’ a tragedy, even a defensive one. There are a couple of ways to look at this. One is that if your friends were as low information; jump on the band wagon, fanatically devoted and plain dumb as the antis you might become convinced that most people aren’t to be trusted, perhaps enough so as to overlook logic and fact. Another way only makes sense if you find a way to wrap your mind around the idea that many of these people are phobic about firearms. Their fears are by definition irrational and thus their arguments must be too. Personally I’m on the borderline of arachnophobia, but not to the degree that I’d vote all spiders be banned. At one level I know it won’t work and at another I realize they’re a necessary part of the eco-system. I’m just not sure if the difference is my relatively low level of discomfort or a better developed use of logic.
    There is yet another lens antis can be seen through that is illustrative. This one is the stereotypic ‘bleeding heart’ who thinks anytime anyone dies for any reason a tragedy has occurred. I suspect such a position is projection at work, that is, they cannot accept their own mortality and so cannot accept anyone else’s either (see coward). This function continues even to the point that someone killed to prevent them killing someone else is traumatic and tragic and the paradoxical nature of such a position is lost to them.
    Never be fooled that ‘they’ have their way of seeing things and we have ours. For the choir this sermon may be unnecessary, but it bears noting that one who embraces paradox without irony is definitionaly possessed by a mental disorder. I’ll attempt to expound; “Guns kill people and people dying is (always) bad thus guns are (always) bad.” The logical flaws are in parenthesis. Clearly people dying can be bad, but to assert that it is always in all cases bad is factually untrue, a flawed premise. The argument that follows is likewise logically flawed. Since sometimes it is good that someone dies, and guns don’t always kill people, to derive that guns are bad because they are sometimes used to kill people is illogical. Illogical arguments aren’t limited to this or any other debate, but what sets antis apart is their willingness and more so their ability to set aside the untrue premises and flawed arguments in order to accept the illogical conclusions. Such a state of believing that which is demonstrably untrue on its face has a clinical diagnosis: delusion.
    To demonstrate that hoplophobia isn’t always at play, I wish to examine another similar ideal that I believe is linked to the anti gun position.
    The argument is as follows; People dying is bad, and poverty sometimes kills people, thus we must eliminate poverty. On the surface this certainly seems reasonable, even noble. It’s only when deconstructed that the problems surface.
    Consider that some portion of people who are impoverished are there of their own doing. Addiction, poor money management, laziness etc are all factors. Note that I said ‘some’ since it’s clear that for others the condition of poverty is neither wanted nor a result of their own action or inaction. If we accept the premise that some people are impoverished by their own hand then the statement ‘Some people bear responsibility for their economic condition’ is true. This alone suggests that a ‘war on poverty’ is a flawed concept since we cannot define the enemy.
    Next consider that humans, as a biological organism, have adapted to fill many niches in the ecosystem. I submit that ‘welfare class’ is a niche, and that the greater it’s expanded more people will adapt to fill it. Consider that if ‘impoverished’ means free phones, housing, transportation, medical care, food and a sufficient supply of cash for sundry other needs then most of us are ‘impoverished’. How much money per year would it take for you to accept government benefits and quit producing? Is it 1.5x what you’re making now, 2x? Say what you wish but there is a point at which producing is counterproductive and the better lifestyle is government benefits.
    Using this formula it becomes clear that as the niche expands beyond a certain degree there will become more non-producing consumers than there are producers as the incentive switches to the former and the latter are penalized by having their produce taken and distributed to those who do not produce. I don’t think there is any argument to the assertion that such a system is unsustainable.
    What does this have to do with gun control? It utilizes the same delusional framework. Eradication of ‘poverty’ as it’s defined in the US isn’t an achievable goal. Further, the more effort one exerts toward it the greater the degree of harm to the economy at large, resulting in greater overall poverty. The paradox inherent in this concept is just as lost to its adherents as the one in the gun control argument. There are those who would (have?) push us off a cliff rather than face that fact. This is just as true of gun control, since its proponents would have us all defenseless to crime and tyranny rather than have us kill just one person to maintain liberty or even to defend our own lives.
    These deluded and illogical lines of thought have another commonality, both typically occur in progressives. I submit that ‘progressive’ as it refers to a type of political thought could loosely be defined as ‘one who embraces noble ideals, impossible to achieve, to such a degree that fact, logic or even real demonstrable harm resulting from pursuit of these ideals fails to impede continued pursuit’.
    Perhaps when next beset by what appears to be inexplicable ignorance from the minds of those who are clearly educated the preceding will aid in understanding.

  17. Clerical error? Perhaps. I remember some reporters counting Adam Lanza among the slain at Sandy Hook. Many of the modern day useful idiots have indeed been brainwashed into thinking criminals are victims, and regular Americans are to blame for their plight. The natural and adaptive response to being victimized is to gut up and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Too often, the leftist response is to accept that the criminals have some right to victimize them. This twisted self-loathing is horrifying. What’s worse, this mentality is now driving US foreign policy. We have to shake this off and come to our senses as a nation.

  18. Actually this is a trend we might want to consider supporting.

    If the bodice-heaving politically motivated mayors are all hotted up about Victims of Gun Violence, then all we really need to do is start making up Unwanted posters of who the vast majority of these people are. Then put on a pot of espresso and have a ball getting the rabid anti-gunners to explain just why it’s a Terrible Tragedy that the Tsarnaevs ate lead. Or for that matter, the local career criminal/predator in his late teens and early twenties who already has made many lives hell or worse.

    Where I come from originally, we in the very poor working class had only one hope where the local degenerate bullies were concerned: that they sometimes did what LE and we could not, and terminated each other in a deathgasm of testosterone-packed passion. Not often enough to increase quality of life for the law abiding and neighborly…so all those of us who could, got out.

    Even so, there will still be romantic idealists who worship pirates and degenerates out of their inner programming to despise the productive and cooperative. And whose egos are so big, they believe that they can be another man’s redeemer.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here