"Common use" and "unusual and dangerous" are two items that can be twisted and used to infringe. I'm glad this went the way it did, but there is a poison pill in the details that should keep us vigilant.
Perhaps, but I think not. Consider that in Heller, the justices looked back to the founders. They considered what kinds of arms were brought by people called into militia service. They also considered that to permit the government to decide what arms were protected would render the 2nd Amendment meaningless. Clearly there has to be some limit to the kind of arms protected. Allowing citizens to possess nukes and armed fighter jets is absurd. The common use test is the best we could ever hope for - as illustrated by this sound ruling. Furthermore, as the court pointed out - arms must be both unusual and exceptionally dangerous. Additionally, in Heller, the principle of liner decedents is set forth. Today's handguns, rifles and shotguns are protected because they are descended from those more primative models available in the past. So future, improved models will also be protected.
The real danger is that - should we lose the presidency - a change in the court's make up will result in a reversal of Heller/McDonald. We should be prepared to pass a constitutional amendment to restore our 2nd Amendment rights.