I can argue against these "common sense" regulations all day long, and here's why.
1. That would result in a back-door registration of who owns firearms. Not only is that illegal, but it's not a good idea. If you need any examples of why that's a bad idea, check out your local library in the "history" section under Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. If you would like a current events relation, check out what's happening in Mexico at the moment. Drug cartels are running rampant in the northern states, to the point where they have the police and feds under their thumb. So citizens have decided to say "To hell with laws, I'm getting what I need to protect myself". Which worked, for a while. Until the feds said "Yeah, we're with you, here, sign up on this here list so we can help you out." When they do, their firearms are seized and the drug cartels have a nice convenient list of who opposed them.
2. The form was never meant as a thorough questionnaire. That's what the background check is for. The form 4473 is simply so that when they sign it, it becomes a legally binding document, meaning the feds can also bring perjury, falsification of a federal form, etc type charges against the person who bought the gun.
3. Again, that brings into account a back-door gun registry. See #1 why that's a bad thing.
4. The whole compromise thing is a joke. The pro-gun people have been "compromising" for over 200 years at this point. It's always "just a little". Well at this point 200 years worth of "just a little" or "common sense" gun laws have become a huge volume of gun laws that control dang near every facet of firearms design, materials, import, export, sales, ownership, and use. If you want to see the definition of government bureaucracy, just check out the BATFE. And if you don't believe me, I dare you to wade through the laws that govern just the selling of firearms without emailing or calling them for their interpretation of the laws.