[Ken H]

Here's what Bork says about the Second Amendment--

"In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes 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."

Borking the Second Amendment</a?

[Ken H]

Try that link again--

Borking the Second Amendment

[Richard Kimball]

Ken & tpaine,
First, I have no doubt that both of you have read the book, and I noted that Bork was not popular with many Freepers. His book, though, includes a very good history for the layman of judicial activism. I have always found it odd, that as a proponent of "original intent", he could take the stand he does on the 2nd. I wasn't implying that I agree with all of his stands, simply that his book is a good read.

[beavus]

In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes 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.

There aren't enough stealth bombers to beat an unarmed mass uprising let alone one armed with rifles. The best it could do is nip uprisings in the bud and hope the nipping intimidated other buds from emerging.

The US easily had the N. Vietnamese outarmed.

CotUS or no, it ultimately comes down to the character of the citizenry and its leaders. The CotUS either matches that character, or the CotUS will ultimately be ignored or changed.