Well, I suspect that you didn't have the time available to read it carefully. If you are truly unable to follow an argument that uses a few symbols for propositions and/or events, perhaps a more comprehensive education would be in order. But ultimately it was clear enough for you to supply a little more of the information that had been lacking instead of simply pointing again at what you had already written.
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts.
This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
And of course if a state legislator says it, it must be a fact. I always trust what a state legislator says. That should be proof enough for anyone. Evidence? I suppose. Conclusive? Depends on how much you trust two things: a state legislator's self-understanding, and a state legislator's probity.
Many people would claim that the intent to ban assault weapons was present in the legislators long before the 'gun events,' and that these 'gun events' were only pretexts for the legislation. This would seriously dispute the claim that the legislation was a "reaction" to the "events"--except as one "reacts" to an opportunity to do what one has long desired. And certainly this would not be an "extreme" reaction.
Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
If I cared to take the time, I am sure that I could produce several possible "answers." But they would be nothing but conjectures that I would be unable to support with evidence. But if you read carefully, you will find that your question was in fact my question to you.
In an earlier post, you said that this fundamentalist support was an "extreme reaction." Now, are you saying that you DON'T know what it is a reaction to? You believe that the legislator's actions were a reaction to the 'gun events' simply because they say so. And you are certain that the fundmentalist FReeper's posts were also a reaction...to something. But now you aren't sure what.
Funny, I thought that the author of the article you posted WAS certain: fundmentalists react to immorality and complexity--although he gave no evidence for this.
Anyway, you have satisfied my curiosity. You are not going to provide any evidence supporting the author's claim, probably (but not provably) because you have none. In fact, you aren't even offering evidence for your own related assertion.
After all, how do you know that the fundamentalists' actions are REactions to some event? Perhaps their posts defending the assault weapon ban and the WOD have been part of their conspiracy, carefully planned decades in advance! But if you CAN provide some evidence that these posts were merely an "extreme reaction" to events and not some monstrous conspiracy, go ahead.
For clarity, let me restate my main point. When Ronald Stanley, O.P. states:
Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.this is nothing but opinion stated as if it were established fact. People who fear or detest fundamentalism may decide that Stanley is "right on." They may quote him as an expert to support their own attacks on fundamentalism. But as to the questions of why people become fundamentalists and why fundamentalists behave in the way that they do: never assume that they have been definitively answered simply because you liked the sound of Stanley's answer.
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.
Were you still talking to me? Or to the invisible crowd of fundamentalists? If to me, then please provide links to my attacks against constitutional principles. Or perhaps you are saying that because I am testing your argument as an adversary, and you are a champion of the Constitution, therefore I must be an enemy of the Constitution. Is that it?
_________________________________
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts.
This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
?? - Weird statement. But believe what you like.
______________________________
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
And of course if a state legislator says it, it must be a fact. I always trust what a state legislator says. That should be proof enough for anyone. Evidence? I suppose. Conclusive? Depends on how much you trust two things: a state legislator's self-understanding, and a state legislator's probity. Many people would claim that the intent to ban assault weapons was present in the legislators long before the 'gun events,' and that these 'gun events' were only pretexts for the legislation. This would seriously dispute the claim that the legislation was a "reaction" to the "events"--except as one "reacts" to an opportunity to do what one has long desired. And certainly this would not be an "extreme" reaction.
So-called 'conservative' fundamentalists are having extreme reactions to gun laws, not the socialist legislators who admitedly hate guns.
Calm down, -- you're confused about the arguments point.
_______________________________
Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
If I cared to take the time, I am sure that I could produce several possible "answers." But they would be nothing but conjectures that I would be unable to support with evidence. But if you read carefully, you will find that your question was in fact my question to you. In an earlier post, you said that this fundamentalist support was an "extreme reaction." Now, are you saying that you DON'T know what it is a reaction to?
No, as I explained, I agree with the author above:
"Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid."
You believe that the legislator's actions were a reaction to the 'gun events' simply because they say so. And you are certain that the fundmentalist FReeper's posts were also a reaction...to something. But now you aren't sure what. Funny, I thought that the author of the article you posted WAS certain:
fundmentalists react to immorality and complexity--although he gave no evidence for this.
Exactly, but he did explain his theory:
"Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth."
-- Your inablity to understand the authors opinion, or my agreement with his words, is regretable.
- I'd suggest that this inablity is a result of your own 'passionate commitment'. Try to control your emotions.
---------------------------
this is nothing but opinion stated as if it were established fact.
No, you are irrationaly attempting to SAY that the author put it out as 'fact', but quite clearly, it is just his theory.
People who fear or detest fundamentalism may decide that Stanley is "right on." They may quote him as an expert to support their own attacks on fundamentalism. But as to the questions of why people become fundamentalists and why fundamentalists behave in the way that they do:
never assume that they have been definitively answered simply because you liked the sound of Stanley's answer.
Are we to assume that Stanley is wrong because you did NOT like 'the sound' of his answer?
----------------------------
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.
Were you still talking to me? Or to the invisible crowd of fundamentalists? If to me, then please provide links to my attacks against constitutional principles. Or perhaps you are saying that because I am testing your argument as an adversary, and you are a champion of the Constitution, therefore I must be an enemy of the Constitution. Is that it?
Beats me. -- I only know that you are very emotional on the subject, & very confused in some of your arguments.
You defend fundamentalists who support gun controls, yet say you support the 2nd amendment. Reconcile your own statements, made right here. No links are necessary.