We may be entering a realm of thinking that says government only has to allow citizens some means of defending themselves, either CC or OC, but once that is provided for in some form, then other areas can be regulated. So theoretically a state could regulate the heck out of rifles and shotguns if they'd already provided for the right of self defense in the area of handguns.
Handguns are useful for defense against random criminals. But the original "defense against tyranny" meaning of the 2nd hasn't been overturned, and for that matter neither has the "militia weapon" standard found in State v. Aymette and cited in Miller.
According to Akhil Reed Amar, the 14th Amendment added a "personal civil right to self defense" element to the 2nd but did NOT destroy the original "political right of milita service" meaning of the 2nd. So a right to handguns can exist side-by-side with a right to modern type rifles (semi-auto or otherwise).
See also Amar's 2000 book "The Bill Of Rights" for the whole story. That book was one of the main triggers behind the prepwork for what became the Heller case.