Perhaps I phrased it poorly, MedicineBow. Here was my original statement:
With that said, let's talk about what "middle ground" means. To my mind, "middle ground" ought to mean the midpoint between: (a) anybody can own anything they can afford, no restrictions whatsoever; and (b) no civilian ownership of firearms whatsoever. It seems to me that we're already beyond "middle ground" and closer to (b) than (a) as it stands today.
I was not referring to how many firearms are out there in civilian hands. I was discussing the regulatory structure in place. For example, if Congress were to pass a law tomorrow that said simply, "It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a member of the US Military or a sworn & certified law enforcement officer may own or possess any firearm," we'd be smack at (b), despite the fact that there may be 200M firearms out there in civilian hands.