The references to compromise and terms like "gun violence" are indications of the author's premise that guns, in and of themselves, constitute a problem to be solved by "rational" people. These same "rational" people are quick to deny natural, God-given rights to individuals for the supposed good of society. To me, denying the rights of even one is not for the good of society.
As the Founders understood, the natural right of self-defense stems from our will to survive. As tool-makers, humans have fashioned devices to enhance our ability to project force, both for survival by taking game and for defense of ourselves and others. Denying the right to use such tools (if/where available at all -- even to an assailant) is an egregious injury to the person denied, and to society as a whole. The Second Amendment simply recognized this individual natural right to defend oneself as a right pre-existing government and that government therefore cannot take.
The gun grabbers argue that guns are a direct threat to their right of safety (presumably akin to the same innate right to defend oneself). It seems odd to me that inanimate objects are considered such a threat, yet these same folks aren't ensconced in protective bubbles from birth to death. I presume none of them walks on a sidewalk next to automobile traffic, or even goes near traffic (drunk-driver risk), ladders and stairs (falling), saws of any kind (just imagine the possible horrors), knives and scissors, doors (might pinch a toe or finger), train tracks, doctors and hospitals, boats, airplanes, etc....
From the gun grabbers' strawman position, it would seem appropriate to outlaw any of these "threats to their safety" and even to outlaw other people since we can't know what danger they may represent. Oops, I guess that means strawman is all alone and cannot be a social creature. Strawman will therefore need tools -- which pose a threat to SAFETY!! My brain hurts as strawman dies.