Nor could they have imagined automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which must mean that we're not allowed to possess them under the Second Amendment, right?
To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”
Although I have not read the court's decision yet, I doubt the court elevated homosodomy to a fundemental right, but rather, reaffirmed the fundemental right to privacy and equal protection under the laws.
Nonsense; a design for a fully-automatic firearm was presented to Congress for a funding request at the second Congress, and working designs for machine guns go back at least as far as 1718 (James Puckle's design). Concepts for machine guns go back even further. The founders were well aware of the inevitable progress of technology, especially in the field of firearms in which many of the founders were personally interested.
If you're going to try to equate sodomy with a fundamental (and constitutionally enumerated) right, I suggest you get your basic facts straight. It also seems somewhat queer that you would select firearm rights in your comparison, considering (even though they are an enumerated right upon which the Constitution is clear that should "not be infringed") that the modern court have often abridged such rights in spite of explicit Constitutional constraints, restraints which do not exist in the case of rules relating to sodomy.