There are already laws that limit weapons ownership - the obvious being nuclear weapons, missiles, and other heavy artillery reserved for the military. In exchange for universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on convicted domestic abusers owning firearms (these are the restrictions the Colorado representatives supported that got them canned), what do you think is reasonable?
Your fear of confiscation is not really reasonable given that it's not ever been brought up for serious discussion on a bill. Sure there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated from owners but since when did the extremes of an issue become the starting point of coming up with solutions to a problem. It seems to me that if there were sensible measures in place to keep guns out of the hands of people we *know* should not have them - convicted violent criminals, domestic abusers, mentally incompetent, etc. - then there would be far less outcry about the ease of access to firearms. It would protect against any movement to confiscate all guns (of which there is none - repeat, there is no movement to confiscate all guns from lawful gun owners).
So what is it you want that you do not have now that you would like to get in exchange for things such as universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on gun ownership for those reasons mentioned above?