[frgoff]

I ignore the legal opinions of people who say that the Second Amendment protects the right of the states to have a National Guard,

Bork argues that the second amendment can be interpreted either way, and he's correct.

[steve-b]

Bork argues that the second amendment can be interpreted either way, and he's correct.

Nonsense. The notion that an amendment preventing the government from disarming itself was somehow inserted into a batch of protections for individual liberties is preposterous on its face.

Chappaquiddick Ted & Company managed to do a great service to the nation, albeit unintentionally, when this joker somehow got himself nominated as a justice.

[robertpaulsen]

"Bork argues that the second amendment can be interpreted either way, and he's correct."

I believe the only federal court that stated the second amendment protected an individual right was the recent 5th Circuit decision in Emerson.

Every other lower court ruling either said is was either some "collective" right or the right of a militia.

[Oztrich Boy]

Bork argues that the second amendment can be interpreted either way, and he's correct.

The right way, and the Bork way.