These folks always voted Republican
And while I am out on a limb, let me declare that Donald Trump's lead in the state G.O.P. polls is indeed insurmountable. When the delegates to the Republican convention in July in Cleveland assemble, he will be their popular choice as their Presidential nominee. However, the "establishment" Republicans (who are a bit different from the "cloth coat" variety because they have more money) will not let that happen. There will be a brokered convention, nominating someone else, possibly Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or even Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. Trump will walk out of the hall and run his own independent race which will do better in many states than the establishment Republican candidate does. (Sort of like what happened in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate swamping G.O.P. incumbent William Howard Taft and handing the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.)
Of course, this will result in Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide (even without my predicted G.O.P. split, she would still probably win), and the Republicans won't recover, if they ever do, for many, many years, at least on the national level. This division in their party will leak down to the local level, resulting their loss of control of some state legislatures, governorships and Congressional seats. Over the long haul, this will not be a healthy development because it may lead to one-party rule.
Those who might disagree with such government involvement because of the Second Amendment should remember that Farook and his wife’s actions were not “necessary to the security of a free state” and therefore they had no "right to keep and bear arms” as that oft-misquoted Amendment states. What they had was far, far beyond a weapon for hunting or self-protection, or something to have handy "if called into the militia," and should be illegal and beyond any Second Amendment protection.
The bigger picture involves looking at the San Bernadino murders in terms of what is a worldwide battle to destroy Islamic terrorism. I have heard the expression "civilized Islam" used in describing those Muslims with whom we must ally ourselves in combating ISIS and other such terrorists. But doing that requires defining what its implied opposite, "uncivilized Islam" is.
For example, if Saudi Arabia is to be an ally in combating ISIS, how do we view its brand of Islam, the Wahabi variety, which in the eyes of many qualifies as "uncivilized" because of its quiet financial support of terror, as well as its quaint practices such as beheading and not allowing women to drive.