There is no middle ground because the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty damn clear.
You must have missed the part where I said: "Gun law advocates never admit to the 2nd amendment".
And there is a middle ground, whether that has been muddied or not. Can buy a tank? An anti-aircraft shoulder launcher? Oh you mean that is only for militia? But I thought it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". What are arms? military grade equipment? Nuclear ICBM? If you got the money "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty inclusive.
So, do you think CA is overstepping its rights to create those laws? What about other states? So much for state sovereignty, right? Are you shocked that a state has a different definition of "arms" than you? I agree with you, CA has some asinine laws but so do ALL states.
Just because American politics have become bastardized into the extremes of both political parties in all conversations, does not mean there is no middle ground that accommodates the spirit and letter of the 2nd amendment as well as the civilities and power we (individually) have as a post-modern society.
Just for clarification, I am a gun owner and gun rights supporter but even I can see that the debate has become drivel like most conversations in the US.