[dirtboy]

That means the Federal government would be unable to regulate the State militias or enforce the Second Amendment against State laws.

Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism. And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."

It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.

[Double Tap]

Never mind that Article VI of the US Constitution is very specific about state laws not holding up when in conflict with the Constitution.

And I personally watched Bork make comments about the 2nd to the effect that it's staunch supporters were in fact rabid wackos that made themselve look bad with their fanaticism.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism.

I had not heard that. Got a source?

And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."

It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.

While I am certain you know that I agree with that sentiment, the Second also deems a State militia "well regulated." From what I have been able to discern, that means not only are the militia ready and trained to fight, but that a State has the power to manage that armed capability.

This is getting off topic. My point is that I think the Second as written is somewhat at variance with an optimal statement in support of the pre-existing unalienable right to self-defense and that placing enforcement powers in the Federal government has its perils.

[Carry_Okie]

Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism.

I scratched around with Google a bit, but was unable to find your reference. This was the best fit:

"The real argument against severe gun control is one of policy, not constitutionality," Judge Bork wrote that "the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose."

It's an interesting point. I am not sure from it that Judge Bork actually disagrees with the policy of personal firearms ownership when it appears that his opinion is historical in nature.

Have you something that is a better example of what you said or is this a conclusion based upon a composite of Judge Bork's statements?

[jwalsh07]

Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism. And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."

It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.

Right on Dirt!