Second Amendment right to bear STUN-guns?

SINCE I WROTE THIS I FOUND OUT THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES -- DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE: CHICAGO OR SAN FRANCISCO. HOPEFULLY THE DISPARITY IS WORKING ITS WAY TOWARDS THE SUPREME COURT.

Now that the Supreme Court has clarified the Second Amendment right to carry arms as a personal right I think it is time to consider updating the definition of personal arms to cover modern NON-LETHAL weapons like pepper spray and stun guns.

This would mirror the First Amendment's protection of TV and radio, neither of which technologies existed when the Bill of Rights was ratified -- also the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy covering telephone communication even though it did not exist in the early days of the Constitution but which comes under the clear intentions of the framers.

Being non-lethal, pepper spray and stun guns would be much more difficult to regulate -- it being difficult to find enough state interest in the balance on the government side to override what is now recognized as a constitutional right in the opposite balance (with less leeway for Tasers which occasionally seem to prove fatal) -- legislatures are no longer in a position to do just whatever they want.