I would stretch the Constitution far enough to argue that "freedom of the press" includes publishing on the Internet, which is merely a different technology for publishing. Similarly, I would argue that "unreasonable search and seizure" includes infrared and radar searches through walls and electronic searches of email and other Internet communications. The point though is that we should read the Constitution broadly and maintain all the individual protections in the Constitution with their literal original meanings, applied verbatim but encompassing functionally equivalent substitute and replacement technologies.
There is no penumbra and no right to privacy (other than in the 9th and 10th Amendments), but the Second Amendment is an absolute right to keep and bear arms (including handheld arms developed after 1791) and that right shall not be infringed regardless of the sensibilities of what may become the majority.
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
Your stretches are not stretches at all. The founding fathers wanted to protect our freedoms. New technology does not create loopholes in those freedoms; it creates expansions of them.
I would add that as far as the 2d amendment goes, the citizens right to keep and bear arms should include anything that the government might have in its arsenal. Part of the purpose of that amendment is so that I can protect myself from the government. We should not cower in fear at the superior weaponry available to the government. And yes, I would not be too keen on my next door neighbor building a nuke. I haven’t quite thought that through. But since we are nowhere near that point, I figure I have some time to mull it over.