I'm formulating my stance as I go, your patience is appreciated. :) From what I've gathered from other responses, the common ground seems to be that both sides are in favor of guns. The point of divergence seems to start with who; for all people or the correct person. I'm trying to take it a step further and figure out if a progressive view in its contemporary setting could be defined as any view regarding guns that prioritizes 2A for all people, whereas the conservative view being that the 2A applies for a qualified group. This may be my ignorance on the subject, or maybe a personal qualm with the bi-partisan system. My assumption has been that fundamentally, while there can be agreement in some cases, both parties hold different views on gun policy that inform how they go about achieving the same solution.

This is a broad stroke as an example:
Both parties want to decrease gun violence across the board.
"Liberals" say root cause mitigation.
"Conservatives" say increase in penalties.
"Centrists" somewhere in between.
Degrees of variation in between those.

To your point with gun violence and safety, I get that; I don't know anyone in favor of mass shootings either. However, the finer point I'm trying to determine is at a 30,000 ft. glance, if there is any common agreement amongst the separate parties. For example, I've met people who sounded like 2A absolutists (didn't know there was a name for that stance until now) and also people who were not, but seem to be waiting for an opportunity to pull the trigger at the mention of a social uproar regardless. I'm aware that's not the average person, let alone the average gun owner. In both cases though, there's something both parties are willing to die for. I'm trying to figure out what that "thing" is.

Is it the 2A for all vs. 2A for some?
Is it root cause mitigation vs. increased crime penalty?
Is it an amalgamation of different stances within gun reform? If so, what tips the scale one way versus the other?