All this stems from a few words written by the founding fathers -
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
I will not get into a legal discussion or interpretation of these words, rather I think we need to put this into context. When these words were written the United States was a former colony, an upstart in the world. They were breaking from what was the hegemon at the time - England. A nation who's empire the sun never set upon. A nation with the largest navy in the world and a world class standing army. The United States was comprised of a number of farmers and merchants who happened to own muskets to protect their land, hunt and form said militia. Contrast that with today. The United States has the world's most sophisticated military. Period. Therefore the need to have a well regulated militia is unnecessary.
Does this mean we should no longer have the right to bear arms? Of course not. But the right to bear arms does not have the necessity of maintaining a militia. Therefore there should be the ability of imposing greater safety controls on acquiring and keeping those weapons.
- Background checks - If you are a business trying to get a liquor license you have to submit to a lengthy review. If you want to secure a loan, same idea. Or drive a car.
- Increased eduction - You need to take classes to learn to drive a car. Or to be certified with CPR. How about handling a weapon?
- Improved gun safety - Mandatory checks such as gun locks, minimizing capacity of ammo clips and the like. Ban on certain weapons.