One can believe gun control is "frivolous" and yet not believe in the validity of court nullification of gun control laws. The way I can resolve his apparently contradictory statements regarding gun control (without making the cop-out suggestion that he changed his mind back and forth) is to suppose he believed gun control was unwise policy, but did not believe in the court's authority to overturn such bad policy... that kind of thinking is very consistent with his general philosophy.
Does Bork believe the Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right, or doesn't he?
Yes, makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately for Bork, his inability to withhold the emotional tags to the issue ("it's frivolous") and not speak fluidly as to his intellectual reasoning about it, cost us an otherwise outstanding S.C. judge. I'd have liked to have seen him on the Court, otherwise, but the emotionalism worries me. Then again, Renquist wasn't a non-emotional person, nor Ginsberg for that matter.