Modern-tech fits under the 1st, 4th -- AND -- 2nd Amendments.
Including stun guns under the Second Amendment could mimic including TV and radio under freedom of speech and limits on telephone wiretapping under unreasonable search prohibitions: technology that wasn't available when the amendments were passed may fit inarguably under the original intention of the amendments.
Now that the Supreme Court has recognized gun ownership as an individual right I would further claim that the right to bear arms is the right to own an instrument (new tech or old) to protect one's self with. I always held that the "militia" mention in the Second Amendment was place there because bearing arms was not a "natural" right like freedom of speech or privacy (in the days of sociobiology -- the evolution of behavior -- the Bill of Rights seems sort of the "human genome" of human social instincts) but a need-based right (a "militia" being the most statesman like example to put in the first ever constitution). The right to protect yourself outlook could be joined to the newly arrived technology approach to make the latter sound perfectly sensible.