The flaw with that is that what you're describing is not a fair trade. It's one side returning something to another side that already possessed that and had it forcibly, so to speak, taken from them in the first place. Your analogy is also flawed in that a 3rd party does the taking then two equally affected parties trade with each other not with the party that did the taking in the first place.
It's as if I came and took your right shoe, then offered it to you in exchange for your left shoe and called it a win-win since I decided I wanted your left shoe instead and you presumably wanted your right shoe back. Either way you're still missing a shoe. That's not win-win, it's zero-sum at best.
Trading comparisons fail because there was never a trade to begin with, just one side taking something.
At this point capitulating, even hypothetically, any part of the RKBA in exchange for another, is in essence validating the governments ability to place arbitrary and non-effective restrictions on the RKBA. As such, it's unlikely that anyone is going to participate in a discussion saying that they'd trade one for another, no matter how much you want them to be ok with the idea of trading one for another.
If you want an argument for trade, lay one out. So far you have only rejected people's responses to your question because they do not fit into the arbitrary restrictions you want to apply, in what seems to be an effort to get them to justify/support your perceived values of various parts of the RKBA.