[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem of the middle ground, IMHO - is that a major portion of the antigun folks don't agree with two fundamental premises:

1. That armed self-defense is reasonable.
2. That defense against tyranny is a reasonable usage of personal firearms.

Now, surprisingly - I've heard Obama, McCarthy and Bloomberg mention in passing that people have the right to a gun in their home to defend themselves. Perhaps, they are keying off Heller. However, the NY Times editorial board had a recent hissy fit about CCW and CHLs - blood in the streets.

Feinstein, Schumer - etc. - are for removing all guns except sporting uses. On Meet the Press today - the panel was wondering why Gregory had to ask Obama about his gun control plans. The Pres. didn't bring it up. Brokaw talked about not understanding the gun culture and showed a Shotgun News as an example of how a deranged culture wants assault weapons. Since he is a gun owner and shoots birds - he supports having a gun but not an EBR. The sportsmen and women (who shoot birds, deer or paper) must join together to get rid of the EBRs. If you want one, perhaps it could be locked up at a club and then you check it out to shoot.

Well, most of us don't belong to fancy shooting clubs and targets/deer/tweety bird aren't the only reason for EBRs.

Unless, some middle ground acceptance of SD and tyranny rationales is found, then measures to limit access to criminals and the unstable is going to be tied up in the culture split. Unlimited access or no access positions make it hard to even to something like fund better NICS processing.

If I were Wayne LaP. I would start every speech by thanking Obama, Bloomberg and McCarthy for reasonably accepting SD - put them off their stride and move the goal posts. But I'm afraid, WLP isn't that deep at times.

BTW - some pundits think the fiscal mess will paralyze any gun legislation for years to come and then the public's outrage will decay. We will see.