Mark Cuban wants to update the second amendment.

In May of 2019, during an interview with Yahoo Finance’s Andy Serwer, babbling billionaire Mark Cuban said he “would change the Second Amendment in ways that people probably wouldn’t expect.”

Why am I commenting on this over a year after the interview took place?

Because it seems everywhere I look I am seeing Mark Cuban on TV which suggests he harbors certain ambitions with regard to the arena of politics. Therefore it seems prudent that everyone hear the absolute idiocy he spouted off with regard to the second amendment. Such uninspiring rhetoric does not evince a sharp wit.

Below is what he said.

“What I would do is this:
1. Every American citizen has the right to own a gun. Period. End of story – written in the amendment.
2. The federal government will never be allowed to ever confiscate that gun from an individual. Period. End of story.
3. States have the right to manage the ownership, the purchase and ownership and management of guns owned and held within their borders. So that if you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is open carry – so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania, where they’re more stringent and they don’t want you to be able to have a gun, other than in your own premise or you know under lock and key, or you have to do a background check, then that’s up to them to decide.

The Second Amendment has been analyzed up and down and backwards and forwards and it’s created its own set of problems. Let’s update it.”

He’s arguing that the Bill of Rights only enjoins the federal government from doing certain things and therefore it is just fine if the states truncate rights. Has Mark ever heard of the incorporation doctrine?

So how does this comport with his first point, that every citizen has the right to own a gun?

What if we applied his “logic” to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Amendment I, Freedom of Speech

What I would do is this:
1. Every American citizen has the right to free speech. Period. End of story – written in the amendment.
2. The federal government will never be allowed to abridge the free speech of an individual. Period. End of story.
3. States have the right to manage the exercise of free speech within their borders. So that if you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is free speech is allowed – so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania, where they’re more stringent and they don’t want you to be able to speak freely, other than in your own premise or you know, with a state issued free speech permit, or you have to do a background check before being allowed to speak, then that’s up to them to decide.

Amendment IV, Search and Seizure

What I would do is this:
1. Every American citizen has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Period. End of story – written in the amendment.
2. The federal government will never be allowed to commit unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. Period. End of story.
3. States have the right to manage the search and seizure laws within their borders. So that if you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is no unreasonable searches and seizures – so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania, where they’re less concerned with long-standing freedoms and they want to be able to kick in your doors whenever they choose for whatever reason they want, and look up your ass with a flashlight, then that’s up to them to decide.

Amendment V, Rights in criminal cases

What I would do is this:
1. Every American citizen has the right to not be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Period. End of story – written in the amendment.
2. The federal government will never be allowed to try a person for the same crime over and over nor compel an individual to be a witness against himself. Period. End of story.
3. States have the right to manage the trial laws within their borders. So that if you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is no double jeopardy and no compelled testimony against yourself – so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania, where they don’t give a shit and they want to be able to try you over and over and over until the government gets the verdict it wants and if they want to be able to torture you until you confess, then that’s up to them to decide.

Amendment VI, Right to a fair trial

What I would do is this:
1. Every American citizen has the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Period. End of story – written in the amendment.
2. The federal government will never be allowed to convene secret trials with rigged juries in faraway places. Period. End of story.
3. States have the right to manage the trial laws within their borders. So that if you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas requires a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed – so be it. If you live in Pennsylvania, maybe they want to hold secret Star Chamber proceedings or trials with juries the state prosecutor selects and pays for and at a time and place of the state’s choosing, then that’s up to them to decide.

See how ridiculous this is?

Cuban’s first assertion is basically what we have now where states infringe to varying degrees upon the second amendment rights of their citizens. This is the problem as the second amendment does not allow for the infringements that many states have written into their laws.

Hey Mark, perhaps you didn’t know this but the words “shall not be infringed” are actually in the second amendment.

Magazine capacity laws, types of cosmetic items allowed on rifles such as pistol grips, collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, melting points of the solder used to attach muzzle brakes and flash hiders, bullet buttons, barrel lengths, etc. are all infringements that would not be allowed by any fair reading of the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Within some states the magazine capacity laws vary from county to county so what was legal here gets you arrested when you cross some invisible county line. Even the NFA of 1934 is an infringement on what the founders wanted for the American people, namely that “every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans”.

For years now the left has insisted that gun owner’s compromise and over and over again we did. But compromise is really not the correct term for what has been happening here. They would ask for five things in their new proposals and would then “compromise” and settle for just two or three items on their wish list. Gun owners got nothing more than a stay of execution for their part of the “compromise”. Whatever items the left didn’t get during that round of law-making would be the first things they would ask for the next time. But it is time now to draw the line; this far and no farther! In fact it is time we begin to push back and reclaim the second amendment and insist that it is held as high and respected as all of the other amendments.

Gun control is a failed ideology. It is like trying to stop drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to own cars.

Link to interview, (Second Amendment idiocy begins at the 35:00 mark)

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/mark-cuban-joins-influencers-andy-090000089.html