1. I found it interesting that President Obama called the killing of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood, by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, an act terrorism. For years, the Army refused to award Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded by Major Hasan, claiming it was “workplace violence,” instead of what it was, a terrorist attack by an Army officer turned al-Qaeda supporter. It wasn’t until April of this year, after Congress passed legislation forcing the issue, that the Army finally awarded the Purple Hearts.
2. Even in a speech as serious as last night’s, and even though he said that “we have to work together to address the challenge,” President Obama couldn’t avoid ripping on those who disagree with him on the tactics we should use in the fight:
“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – no matter how effective they are – cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do – and must do – is make it harder for them to kill.”
Was it really necessary to say “[w]hat could possibly be the argument”? Instead of just asserting the obvious correctness of his view, why not try to convince people. And not impugn the motives of those who may disagree by saying there is no argument.
Recent Comments