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.
Wouldn't the Second Ammendment offer protection to a citizen of a states whose representatives wanted to take guns out of citizens hands?
The operative phrase of the second amendment simply acknowledges the inherent right of the people keep and bear arms. The first phrase is simply a justiciation for the operative phrase. Why Bork hems and haws about that is beyond me but I know he does, I've heard him speak on the topic, as reluctant as he was to do so.