I think this video analogizes it best (language alert):
Barack Obama edged [kickingly and screamingly] closer Saturday to declaring the shootings in San Bernardino, California, that killed fourteen people a terrorist attack, but stuck to his prescription that the answer to preventing such tragedies was gun limits.
“It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio address, broadcast a day after the F.B.I. declared that it was treating the massacre as an act of terror. “And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years — the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.”
You mean like Islam, Barry? About and to which the Muslim Bonnie & Clyde just happened to COMPLETELY COINCIDENTALLY become a lot more devout in the recent past. I don't suppose you'd be willing to tighten up on your Regime's Muslim-control, which allowed Mrs. Farook to receive her K-1 visa without the backup check that might have detected the phony Pakistani address she supplied to your Commissariat of Homeland Insecurity. This being the impregnably airtight "vetting system" you presumably have in place to keep more such Muslim "immigrants" out of your in-flowing Syrian "refugee" stream, no doubt.
But even should a Christmas miracle occur and King Hussein admits that San Bernardino was a jihadist attack on "infidels," his insistent "solution" will never, EVER change:
“We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could,” he said. “It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.”
Their guns were illegal, and so were the remote-control pipe bombs. And I wouldn't want to vouch for the provenance of their military-style body armor, either. No gun law on the books anywhere in the country nor proposed by any Democrat including Barack Obama - and California, if you'll all recall, has the toughest gun laws in the U.S. - could have prevented the San Bernardino massacre. Indeed, they didn't prevent it. Not even gun-confiscation would have prevented it, because mass-murders DO....NOT....OBEY....LAWS,
What is needed is not gun control, but Muslim control. And in the absence of the latter, what is needed is more guns in the hands of law-abiding American citizens, not fewer.
And this, our insane tyrant will not abide.
And, by the way, the Farooks weren't on O's vaunted "no-fly list," even though over half of those who are have no connections whatsoever to terrorism of any stripe and have no means off of which to legally get, and yet he insists that they be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.
As the old saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Consequently, San Bernardino, California, is far from the last American community that is going to be "nailed" in the jihadist onslaught to come.