Nor is it to be altered to compensate for changing "social" norms. Society may well change. The law does not.
The problem with this view is that they refuse to recognize the complexities inherent in language. Consider Amendment VIII, for example, with its reference to "cruel and unusual punishment." Such punishment is dependent on the context in which it occurs. For example, drawing and quartering was once commonplace, but it would very likely be viewed as "cruel and unusual" today. The same with capital punishment for stealing sheep. The function of determining whether or not some punishment is "cruel and unusual" is left to the judgment of the judicial system. If there were some absolute meaning, why not simply state that? (Is that even possible, short of listing every possible punishment? And what about ones that are invented later?)
In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson himself acknowledged that one set of laws may be adequate for one generation and inadequate for others: "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. ...Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html). Evidently, Jefferson at that point was ambivalent about the Founders' ability to proscribe laws for the future, which seems to suggest that Jefferson, at least, was not an absolutist.
(Many of his critics, by the way, argued that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory under his administration was unconstitutional, since adding territory by treaty is not specifically a power assigned to the federal government by the Constitution. And Jefferson himself used that same line of argument...when it suited his purposes.)
Now consider the construction of Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The independent clause of the sentence "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is clear, especially when considering the political context of "people" (i.e. the masses).
But the first part of that is grammatically puzzling. "A well regulated Militia" seems to function as an appositive, but it would be in apposition to "right," which is certainly not a militia. And what does "well regulated" mean? Obviously, someone has to create and enforce the regulations. Who? Amendment II is unclear about that.
And the second part is also somewhat unclear. Does the "security of a free State" refer to preserving individual freedoms? Or does it refer to freedom of a literal "State" defending itself against outside threats? Or both? Or neither?
I'm not trying to be partisan here. I have grave concerns myself about infringements upon our rights, including our right to privacy (a word, which, by the way, is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the subsequent amendments) among others. However, I think that arguing "It means what it says" is an oversimplification of a complex (and not always perfectly clear) document.
P.S. Just for clarity on this post, since it deals with law, I want to be clear that I am not a judge. My screen name is an allusion (and it happened to be the first one that came to mind when I created the account).