I just can't fathom how one could think allowing trade-offs and compromises on a right would protect it. Sir, I would ask that you go back and read Scalia's words in Heller again. The way he defines common use and explains the basis of the right mean future advancements should be included. If you don't have confidence in the courts, and you need not, then such an argument only explains why we need to continue to fight for our rights through our elected representatives and build and maintain a strong community of gun (phaser/laser/plasma/railgun/etc.) owners in this country.
Rolling over and saying "OK, you can tell me I can only have this one type of rifle because its all I need to protect myself" certainly won't do any better.