First, I'd start by identifying those points on which I think both sides are agreed: (1) there should be less gun violence than there is; (2) we ought to do something to crack down on the level of gun violence that there is; and (3) we ought to do so in a way that minimizes infringement upon the "right to bear arms" enshrined in the Constitution. (1), I think, is self-evident, gun violence being an obvious ill. Are both sides agreed on (2)? While I think that gun-rights advocates might object that recent news-making events - mass-shootings - are to an extent inevitable and so not necessarily calls for alarm in themselves, gun-rights advocates have also pointed (correctly) to surges of gun violence in places such as the South Side of Chicago as examples of where we ought to be focusing our attention. Similarly, gun-rights advocates may object to (3) on the basis that no infringement upon the "right to bear arms" can be permitted; but to this I'll say just that I understand "minimize" to encompass the "null set," so to speak. That is, "no infringement" is always better than "some infringement" - I think that is something both sides can agree on.
The problem, simply put, is that, while we are motivated by (2), we don't know (a) how best to accomplish (1) and (b) how to balance an interest in accomplishing (1) while holding to (3).
Here is what I would propose:
That's not to say that the federal government should have no role. The federal government can help local communities to research and compare alternatives and to learn from one another's experiences and to coordinate more generally. But an agenda set in DC is not, in my view, an agenda to address the problem in a realistic way.
Similarly, most of the proposed gun control measures to date are essentially prohibitory in goal or effect. They ban specific types of weapons and ammunition; they limit the ability of certain individuals to obtain weapons at all; they close "loopholes" that permit freer movement of guns in communities. Less discussed, for some reason, is the possibility of simply buying guns and ammunition from the community. If the number of guns in a community is contributing to its gun violence, one simple way to do something about that number while avoiding any infringement upon the right of any person to "bear arms" is simply to offer to buy unwanted weapons and ammunition outright.
The guns rights advocate might argue that this is the point of constitutional protection - to protect certain rights from being sacrificed in the name of political expediency. So put, I would not disagree. But the constitutional design does more than this, when it is construed to prevent us from even knowing whether it needs to be amended.
More fundamentally, we should not confuse the function of the constitutional "floor" holding up our individual rights with the way we democratically deliberate the very nature of that floor. The Constitution tells us, in other words, that there is a basic "right to bear arms," but it does not tell us what that basic right amounts to, or what it means to protect it consistent with the constitutional promise. That, it leaves primarily to us, to work out through our democratic processes.
That test has been widely criticized as too subjective, unwieldy, and prone to "abuse"; but to a certain extent its reputation derives from its being a locality-respecting rule that's been subsumed by a nationalizing jurisprudence. "I know it when I see it" seems like a ridiculous rule when you believe the Constitution imposes a single, timeless, and uniform standard on the entire country. But it's much easier to understand once we dispense with this legal fiction and acknowledge that even the immaculately objective test must be interpreted and applied by a judge, sitting in a community, appointed by a democratically-elected representative (or themselves elected).
The interests that the Second Amendment serves - whether we understand the interest to be in a "well-regulated militia" in general or in the individual rights of those "militia"-members to bear arms for legal use - either have less salience or can be better balanced at the local level. What makes sense as a limitation on federal power may make less sense for a community whose members know, work, and live with one another and are just seeking to solve their own problems amongst themselves. As such, a locality-respecting legal rule makes sense for many of the same reasons that a locality-respecting policy does; it leaves less for a privileged few in DC to muck up for the rest of us.
All that said - I hope that my first points would help to assuage any fear that I've entirely lost sight of (3), above. While I am discouraged by the Supreme Court's agenda-setting on the national level, and I believe it really does prevent us from discovering what truly does (or does not) work, what I advocate on the local level are not policies that are likely to conflict with the Supreme Court's agendas but policies that are largely (if not fully) consistent with it.
Given shared goals and motivations by both sides of the gun-control debate, I believe that we can and should have an intelligent discussion about reducing gun violence in this country - and I am happy to concede that we are not really having it yet. A large part of the reason it is not yet occurring, in my view, is that we insist on doing it on a national level, far removed from the local conditions in which gun violence actually occurs. I think this is counterproductive, to such an extent that perhaps the best thing that Obama, et al., can do to help the process is to shut their own yaps about it.