"Please, stand face to face with the families of those killed by guns and explain that, in detail."
This is a very shallow statement given who is doing the speaking.
First off, I would gladly do it, pointing out that a gun has never killed a person any more than a knife, or a car, or an airplane, or even a bare fist. What is different about a gun is that the right to own it is protected under the constitution. And if you ignore that, out of grief, or fear, or anger, or whatever, what's to say that you wouldn't ignore (or support the government ignoring) anything in the constitution.
The language of the second amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms is there to allow for an armed populace. Don't like it? Cool. There are mechanisms to legally change it. Or anything else in the constitution for that matter. But you don't just get to ignore it. That's not a thing.
Is there any trade space here? I think so. Et Al obviously is the lawyer round these parts, but I think that if the US were to adopt models similar to those used under similar justification in European countries, particularly Switzerland, it would be pretty difficult to claim that the restrictions were not compliant with the second amendment. Most European "Home Guard" members keep a weapon and ammunition at home. Some countries even subsidize the cost of ammunition for training.
This, of course, would really just address the "well-regulated militia" part. Guns for hunting or personal self-defense could still be banned, as hunting and self-defense are not explicitly covered in the constitution.