Amendment is no different than any other part of the
Constitution; subject to the same changing political,
cultural, and technological influences."
Justice Ginsberg pinko 
The average gun enthusiast understands that the 2nd Amendment is no different than any other part of the Constitution; subject to the same changing political, cultural, and technological influences.
What a load of horse doo-doo
I'll give up my sixshooter when you give up your computer.
Justice Ginsberg pinko Damn! I guess I just don't get it. I thought I was an 'average' firearm enthusiast who understood the meaning of "shall not be infringed". The RKBA referred to the state-of-the-art firearms of its day, in the hands of competent citizens. I am denied even the state-of-the-art small arms of my day. (We are not taliking ICBMs here, just rifles and pistols.)
Infringed has not changed in meaning.
I do not advocate the murder of anyone, especially women and children. Funny how many who would take the right to own a specific rifle from me advocate the murder of babies in the womb.
The Constitution was set down (especially when taken in historical context) in plain language. I don't worship it, but I do understand that it was intended to frame out a Government, which properly constrained by the terms of the document, would lessen the likelihood of the concentration of power and the tyranny which would be the result. Human nature hasn't changed.
Some changes have been added as amendments. That is the process by which the framework is changed, one which is intentionally slow, unwieldy, and requires an overwhelming majority in favor.
With this 'living document which needs to be reinterpreted' crap do we deny ourselves the absolute framework which the founders intended to safeguard our liberty. Thus begins the slide toward the abyss.
You need to explain this a little more clearly; the Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly may have had a little different view of what an armed citizenry was all about.
Your gun-grabbing buddy is at it again over here.
What "influences" would those be? Yes, the Constitution can be changed, the provisions for doing so were inserted by the authors becasue they knew that things change. However those procedures are the only way to change the meaning of the Constitution, not through "influences" of appointed judges and Justices.
Since the second amendment hasn't been amended it means today what it meant when first passed. The only possible exception to that would be it's applicability to the states via the privledgs and immunities and due process clauses of the 14th amendment. But that depends on whether you agree with the pre-14th Justices who ruled that it only applied to Congress, even though it doesn't say that, as the first amendment does.
Man....are you ignorant.