No, Bork is consistent with the original intent of the Constitution. He believes in a federal government with limited powers per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. He believes that the selective incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment is bogus. That means the Federal government would be unable to regulate the State militias or enforce the Second Amendment against State laws.
The question is: Do you want Federalism or unlimited Federal power?
There is good reason for this preference. It preserves the powers of your local government which means that your local representation would remain meaningful. As things are now, the federal courts are dictating terms to local governments on hordes of issues that never reach the Supremes.
It's a trade-off with which Bork is at least consistent, unlike most Federal jurists.
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.