Nice but the perfect argument was give by Scalia in his Heller opinion:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I have read other text that made the argument of how ridiculous would it be if the First Amendment only guaranteed free speak delivered by way of the spoken word, or in pamphlets, or papers, and did not cover modern day communications like over the phone, or Internet. Of course that would be preposterous.

And what if the Fourth Amendment only protected us against search methods only available during our founding, but allowed no protection against electronic eavesdropping, or surveillance.