No compromise is needed. The right to bear arms is just that, rifle or handgun. A compromise on gun ownership would be like a compromise on freedom of speech or religion.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Our founders clearly and unambiguously recognized a right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Our founders denied the federal government the power to infringe upon that right. It is commonly known that every able-bodied man (and every able-bodied woman--and perhaps even every able-bodied child in a bona fide emergency) is a de facto member of his state militia and these people can be called upon in an emergency to defend the State (and its residents) against imminent threats to its security and the freedom of its residents. A "compromise" that bans arms except "hunting rifles" ostensibly for "hunting" purposes simply defies the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment. For instance, if the right to keep and bear arms has been regulated out of existence except for hunters, and if your state is suddenly invaded by a foreign or alien army, then the pool of able-bodied persons capable of defending the state and its residents would be unduly limited to hunters. How ridiculous is that?