Grand Duke Henri's last stand

Then apparently you must agree with my proposition that today's weaponry are not included in the "arms" of the Second Amendment because that word was not so understood at the time. And for that matter, the broadcast media and the Internet are not covered by the First Amendment.

Nonsense. That argument would make sense if it could be shown that the Founders believed that weaponry would never advance, and that by using "arms" therefore they meant to protect only the muskets of their own day and nothing in the future. Does anyone seriously believe the Founders would have excluded rifles from the definition of "arms"? Apparently no one at the time thought so, since no controversy arose.

Such a weak analogy is poor justification for claiming that the 140 year old concept of "equal protection" requires allowing "marriage" between any two persons (but not more than two, because, well, just because) irrespective of sex. Or that the Constitution stood for nearly two hundred years before anyone noticed that, hidden deep within the "penumbra", it contains a right to abort one's child. Such decisions are lawless. Defending them debases the notion of law itself.

Re: That argument would make sense if it could be shown that the Founders believed that weaponry would never advance, and that by using "arms" therefore they meant to protect only the muskets of their own day and nothing in the future.

Special pleading. Your argument reduces to: the Founders would agree with us if they could come back to life in our time and understand the world according our knowledge of it.
Look, I happen to think that Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided-- but not because I don't think there's a right to privacy, I happen to agree strongly with that idea (and in the 9th Amendment the Founders tell us pretty straight out "Look, don't think you can argue that because we didn't list a right it doesn't exist"). Rather, Roe vs Wade is wrong based on the fact that the fetus is a person with a right not to be killed. That's something any pro-Life person should be able to agree with, no need to wade into the constitutional interpretation swamp at all-- or sign onto an agenda that promotes Big Government of the most intrsuive, out of control sort.
As far as other matters go, the Constitution cannot lock us down in 1789 forever. Its language should be interpretted relative to our understandings of today. We cannot, after all, query the dead to ask them clarify what they meant. Both technological and social changes need to be allowed for.