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.
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.
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.
I scratched around with Google a bit, but was unable to find your reference. This was the best fit:
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?
It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.
Right on Dirt!