[Jim W N]

Well, although that may not be an inaccurate reading of the Second Amendment, I would say that the Constitution only grants specified and limited power to the federal govenment and I don't see forbidding arms as one of them. Anything that has not been delegated by the Constitution to Congress is reserved to the states and the people (10th Amendment).

This should be a matter for the states to decide where people at the local level have a direct say. I don't think Bork would disagree with that.

Bork has always stood for understanding original intent, and against a judge's replacement with his own personal morals, in Constitutional law. As a judge, Bork gave you his best reading of the intended law and not policially-motivated interpretations, which is whay he refused to speak in his defense when Kennedy and the Socialists (sounds like the name of a band) were reaming him - because he dosen't believe in mixing the law with politics.

As a private citizen, he may personally feel that way about guns, I don't know. On the bench and as a judge, however, Bork would give you his best reading of original intent which is why he was one of the most respected judges in following the integrity of the law.

[Lancey Howard]

I agree with you, generally, about Bork, but there are essentially two ways to view the Second Amendment and Bork’s is the way that agrees with Ginsberg, Breyer, et al. No thanks.