I was reading an article that quoted Mark Cuban’s thoughts on how he would change the Second Amendment. Cuban made the comments to Yahoo Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in a conversation that aired on Yahoo Finance.
Cuban proposed an “update” to the Second Amendment that he believes would protect the rights of gun owners and bolster the authority of states to dictate firearm policy within their borders.
“One, every American citizen has the right to own a gun,” Cuban said. “Two, the federal government will never be allowed to ever confiscate that gun from an individual.”
So far so good. I was actually cheering him on at this point. I thought, “maybe this guy actually respects the Constitution. But then he said, “States have the right to manage the ownership — the purchase, ownership and management — of guns owned and held within their borders.”
“If you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is open carry, so be it,” he added. “If you live in Pennsylvania where they are more stringent and they don’t want you to be able to have a gun other than in your own premises or under lock and key or you have to do a background check, then that’s up to them to decide.”
TRENDING: Trump Speaks Out After Vowing To Uncover Russia Probe Roots: ‘We’re Exposing Everything’
In other words, Cuban doesn’t really understand what the Second Amendment is.
Cuban is a smart businessman and I’ve always respected his success, but something happens to some people in our society after being bombarded with anti-gun propaganda. The anti-gun rhetoric and false gun-narrative seem to give some people the idea that it is OK to disrespect the rights of others.
Some people become so influenced by a media narrative that perpetuates irrational gun-fear, that they fail to look at gun-ownership through a lens of logic. They fail to see the fact that human-violence is caused by many things that have nothing to do with guns and they fail to understand why the Second Amendment was written.
The intent of the Amendments as originally written was to make perfectly clear that the rights outlined within the Bill of Rights were to be understood as “rights of the people” and were never to be infringed upon. Government would do its work around them.
Any policies or laws written would first be scrutinized to avoid any infringement on the Amendments within the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It really couldn’t be any clearer. The Second Amendment is not a “thing that can be altered or updated.” It is simply a reminder to anyone who thinks they have the authority to violate the rights of others.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless state governments don’t want you to have a gun.”
The Second Amendment doesn’t say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless some billionaire has a really good update.”
The Second Amendment doesn’t say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as they are in your own premises or under lock and key.”
Although Cuban’s proposal says, “the federal government will never be allowed to ever confiscate that gun from an individual,” I wonder what would happen if you violated state laws that could be allowed under his plan.
Mark, the whole reason the Second Amendment was written was to prevent people from doing exactly what you are proposing to do.
Although it appears that you think your idea is so great that it warrants complete disregard for the rights of your fellow citizens, it also shows that you have completely missed the point.
Our Founding Fathers saw you coming over 200 years away, which is why they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights.
In short, the answer is no, but nice try.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.This article was originally posted here.