The Newtown, Conn., massacre has launched a national conversation covering many topics.

“Guns” is one of them.

But as this discussion progresses, I’m struck once more by the dynamic that drives it. The extremists on both sides are out-shouting those – such as yours truly – who believe there can be a compromise solution that accomplishes two key aims: preserving the Second Amendment right to own firearms while restricting the flow of assault weapons onto our streets.

President Obama has launched a task force, headed by Vice President Biden, to examine legislation that produces what the president termed “meaningful action” in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre of Dec. 14.

I hope we can restore the ban on assault weapons as a start toward restoring our national sanity.

The founders crafted the Second Amendment without ever imagining a world with the types of weapons used in Newtown, or Columbine, or Aurora, or Fort Hood. And those are just the recent tragedies that have shocked the nation.

Can’t there be some accommodation found that results in a ban on these weapons? Does that mean ordinary folks like me can’t own a gun? No. I have no intention of ever purchasing an assault weapon that can blast off dozens of bullets in the blink of an eye. Indeed, the only logical reason for these weapons is for our warriors to use them on the battlefield.

The discussion, though, is focusing – as it always does – on the positions of both extremes. Gun-rights groups warn lawmakers not to do anything to limit the purchase and/or use of these weapons. Meanwhile, those at the other extreme shout with equal vigor that all guns should be confiscated.

The gun-rights extremist wing is winning the argument so far, given that they see any law regulating assault weapons as an infringement on their constitutional right to own firearms. That is utter nonsense.

Surely we can find a way to resolve this single matter. Then we can turn our attention to the vast array of other issues that has contributed to this violent madness.