Do you fellas remember back when we had rule of law? The nice thing about that concept is that it gives you a firm place to grab onto when making relative arguments. Take this little tidbit that was written down as a law someplace back when such things mattered:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So let's use that as our benchmark and have a conversation about extremism.
There are people who hold extreme views on a topic like private ownership of guns. As an example, Dianne Feinstein thinks anything that goes bang is an 'assault rifle' and therefore the above law shouldn't apply to it. She's trying to call pistols and shotguns assault weapons. She expects free citizens to get fingerprinted and to register before exercising their constitutionally protected rights - all because she's afraid of something she doesn't understand. Silly.
For her, the real issue in the law above that she thinks should be subject to her interpretation are the words "shall not be infringed". She doesn't think it's infringement to ban certain classes of weapons, make people get fingerprinted or to ask for permission from her before exercising their rights. It's just how she see's it.
There are other people with extreme views too. They generally have problems with the words - "militia" and "arms". We have a standing army now, but back when this law was written, we had a citizen's militia. Who was in the militia? Every able bodied (and able minded) man of a certain age. And what were the arms he was supposed to keep and bear? A weapon suitable for use in military operations.
So from their perspective, it's a reasonable and rational thing to assume that every able bodied man should be required (not just allowed) to keep and be able to bear a fully automatic carbine much like the ones used by our military. That's certainly no more of a stretch than Mrs. Feinstien's view of the words "shall not be infringed".
I personally don't hold either of these views - even if I'm more sympathetic to one than the other. I'm not as extreme as anyone depicted here. My only point is that we shouldn't pretend that Diane Feinstein doesn't hold an extreme view just because it's the same extreme view held by much of the media.