I don't know how else the whole 'monopoly on violence' discussion could be interpreted otherwise. That is sort of a pretty major argument to pepper in a speech.
If he was having a discussion with any of the other 500 legislators or just about anybody it would be like 'wha? WTF? what do you mean monopoly of violence?? what are you talking about??"
I hope nobody gets nitpicky about him blending constitutional and an cap messages!
Currently consuming: Free Domain Radio; NE Patriots Football; Nintendo Wii