Okay, I'll address your specifics if you'll address mine.
You say that the 'conservative' fundamentalists defense of a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'is an "extreme reaction."
This discussion can rapidly become verbose. To attempt to maintain clarity, I will use a bit of notation. If you have trouble with it, let me know and I will try again with words instead. So...
Let A stand for the proposition: States have a right to prohibit assault weapons.
I trust that you aren't expecting me to defend proposition A. My sympathies lie in the other direction, generally.
Let B stand for the event: Conservative fundamentalists make posts defending proposition A.
Nor will I defend event B. Instead, I am questioning your assertion...
You assert the following: B is an "extreme reaction" by the fundamentalists. Now if event B is in fact a reaction, it must be a reaction to some other event or phenomenon. I am asking you to specify the event or phenomenon to which B is a presumed reaction. The author of the piece you posted claimed that fundmentalists' actions--indeed, fundmentalism itself--was a reaction to the immorality and complexity of the world.
So let C stand for the event: The world is immoral and complex.
Are you then asserting that event B is a reaction to event C, as the author of this piece might claim? Or are you suggesting that B is a reaction to some other event D that you have not specified as yet?
Once you have specified the event to which you claim B is a reaction, I am also asking you to give evidence supporting your claim that event B is a reaction to it.
For example, perhaps you would claim that B is a reaction to the events of September 11. (That is the normal process of social "science": pick a likely looking suspect and convict him without a trial.) At least in this case you might have some circumstantial evidence, if posts along the lines of event B were more common after 9-11 than they were before it. But even with that, there were many events that happened on September 11, 2001 besides the NYC disaster. The hypothetical circumstantial evidence I suggested in the sentence before last--even if the numbers were statistically significant--would have no way of distinguishing between the many coincidental events of that date to choose the one that caused the reaction you claim...
Anyway, you claim that B is a reaction to some event. Specify the event. Give evidence why you think that B is a reaction to it. While you're at it, you might do the same for your other "specific points."
Perhaps you believe that it is enough to point your finger at people you label "conservative fundamentalists" and choose some behavior you don't approve of and call it an "extreme reaction." Well, if pointing fingers and calling names is enough, all of your favorite causes and leaders must have been thoroughly discredited years ago, since I'm sure that fingers have been pointed and names called. Why not rise above that level of discourse?
Yes it is.
You then observe the "discussion can rapidly become verbose", and proceed to do exactly that with your A/B nonsense. Finally you get to the point:
Anyway, you claim that B is a reaction to some event. Specify the event.
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts. Shootings in SF, Sac & LA have contributed to this climate of over-reaction. Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
Give evidence why you think that B is a reaction to it.
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
While you're at it, you might do the same for your other "specific points."
They are as self evident as the gun example. - You're just playing some weird ABC game here.
Perhaps you believe that it is enough to point your finger at people you label "conservative fundamentalists" and choose some behavior you don't approve of and call it an "extreme reaction."
It may help some borderline fundamentalists to see the irrationality in their postions, - I can only hope.
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.