Mavs Owner Mark Cuban Wants to ‘Update’ the Second Amendment

Billionaire Mark Cuban said in a recent interview with Yahoo Finance that he would “update” the Second Amendment in three distinctive ways.

“One, every American citizen has the right to own a gun,” the Dallas Mavericks owner told interviewer Andy Serwer. “Two, the federal government will never be allowed to ever confiscate that gun from an individual.”

Finally, Cuban’s third edit is to allow states to regulate firearms as they see fit, provided they do not violate his first two edicts, presumably.

“If you live in a state like Texas, if the law in Texas is open carry, so be it,” he explains. “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.”

Someone should inform Cuban that that’s essentially what the 2A along with the 10A already say.  We have an individual right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed; meanwhile, powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution belong to the people and the states. 

Put quite simply, neither the states nor the fed can confiscate arms without due process.  States also have the regulatory authority to place limits on the ways in which one can exercise a right.  Texas allows open carry, to use his example.  New York bans its practice unless one is hunting or on a shooting range, as much as it pains me as a New Yorker.

Yes, some state place too much red tape on the 2A and need to be checked by the high court from time to time. But generally speaking, our Constitutional framework isn’t broken.  It doesn’t need to be overhauled nor updated.  The only reason why there is contention on the issue of bearing arms, specifically, is roughly half the country either can’t read or, more likely, fundamentally rejects the greatest discovery the West ever made: the sovereignty of the individual. 

The battle over gun rights in this country is a battle over individual rights.  Nannystaters, collectivists, Neo-liberal-post-modern types, political elites, wealthy Leftists, global bankers, just to name a few, are hellbent on destroying the rights and freedoms of the individual.  In their perverted view of the world, they want us to be subjects, not citizens; a public that is powerless to stop the rollout of their “utopian” (tyrannical) agenda.

SEE ALSO: The Distance Your Holstered Gun Is Useless Against A Knife-Wielding Attacker

The operative clause of the 2A, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” is the biggest obstacle standing in their way.  It’s why they try to convince you and I and Mark Cuban and anyone else who will listen that it means something else other than what it plainly states.  They know, as well as we do, that it’s the Second that secures the rest.  Repeal it, or short of that transform it into a severely limited right contingent on militia service, one of the favored strategies by gun prohibitionists, and our free society will fall.  

So, while one can appreciate Cuban’s desire to keep the government’s hands off our guns, he needs to recognize that we meddle with the Constitution at our own peril. Our founders and framers knew what they were doing.  It’s why our American way of life, despite the constant onslaught from anti-Constitution agitators, is still intact after all these years. 

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • Rob Rzodkiewicz August 30, 2021, 6:11 pm

    As a New Yorker, I was told by a law enforcement officer that nowhere does it say you can’t carry openly. Please cite the law if I’m wrong about this

  • Nick T June 1, 2019, 8:28 pm

    @Blannelberry, The RKBA is completely misunderstood, and has been greatly diminished in part by those who profess to be supporters.
    First, A right can in no way shape or form be regulated as that would make it a privilege. The fallacy comes from citing Schenck v United States, 249 U.S. 47 out of context. In this case, Justice Holmes opines that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. In this case, there is a crime being committed that can in no way comport with a right. Someone is “falsely shouting”, and the word falsely implies an evil. Evil and rights do not mesh. The evil outcome is “causing a panic” and thereby causing a harm. These are acts cognizable under the common law, but in no way applicable to a right.
    Second, The one thing that the States are barred from regulating in any manner is the RKBA because it obstructs the Duty at Article I, Section 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and Article II, Section 2, along with the existing State statutes, upon which those articles rest.
    The only thing that the States can do by the pre-existing statutes is to guarantee that all able-bodied men, 18-45 made uniform under Cls. 16, own and maintain a military style weapon with sufficient ammunition.
    None of what I’ve written here has in anyway been changed by the required constitutional amendment.
    All the information surrounding the Duty/RKBA is available to the legal teams at the NRA, and GOA, but admitting that they’ve been lying to their membership for years would not sit well when you take into account the Hundreds of Millions of dollars contributed to protect a right, when all that was needed was for the People to perform the Duty that the Constitution requires.
    For those interested in actually learning the subject there are a myriad of laws and statutes that are actually constitutional as opposed to the “unorganized” statutes that are prevented by Article I.
    Dr. Edwin Vieira has written many articles and books on the subject:
    Three Rights
    Thirteen Words
    Constitutional Homeland Security, and for those who really want to delve into the topic,
    The Sword and Sovereignty, which is over 2300 pages, with over 4000 footnotes on law, and history.

  • Gourdhead June 1, 2019, 2:13 pm

    Phuck Mark Cuban. Pound sand along with your collection of mostly moronic employees.

  • Pete A Fasanello May 31, 2019, 2:58 pm

    Do what you do best boy-handle your balls

  • William May 31, 2019, 2:29 pm

    Fine. All you need is about 36 states to agree with you. Good luck you half-wit.

  • Michael A Keim May 31, 2019, 11:47 am

    Just another rich loudmouth asshole

  • Erwin Lang May 31, 2019, 11:04 am

    About the open carry law. I am very pro second amendment. But I personally would never carry openly. In certain circumstances it would set you up to be the first target for a shooter. Secondly, if I ever have to defend myself, I want it to be a complete surprise to the bad guy.

  • James May 31, 2019, 10:29 am

    The other thing Mark Cuban is ignorant about is Pennsylvania. We have “no-permit” open carry. We have “shall-issue” concealed carry. We have a hell of a lot more in common with Texas than we do with The People’s Republic of New York. PA is very 2A friendly.

  • Kevin Baxter May 31, 2019, 9:16 am

    I’ve got a better idea for Mr. Cuban and anyone else like him.
    2A: absolute, non-negotiable. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

  • VieteranGunsmith May 31, 2019, 8:11 am

    Mark Cuban should stick to advising people on investing their money and stay out of encouraging modernist revisionism of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. This has been working without his input for nearly 250 years. Mark suffers from the same disease that a lot of wealthy people do – they think their opinions trump the history and traditions of the republic, and that they are entitled to redefine the parameters under which America is America.

    These people are as wrong as they can be regardless of their motives. I, like millions of veterans of the armed forces took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution, and I, like millions of my fellow veterans have never rescinded that oath. This is why I oppose suggestions and proposals such as Mr. Cuban’s that would “modernize” the Constitution. This is a euphemism for dismantling it incrementally. Why do you suppose that they always start with wanting to change or eliminate the Second Amendment? The reason for that is elementary – it is the most important amendment and the one upon which all the others depend.

    Without it, the rest of your rights are fair game. Another popular idea floating around today is the elimination of the electoral college. This would be a disaster of unequalled proportion. If not for the electoral college deciding presidential elections, these elections would be decided by the large population centers across the country, and the rest of the interior of the country’s population would become forever disenfranchised. This is why the framers of the Constitution put it in the document that defines our republic.

    Without either of these things, the republic of the United States of America would cease to exist. The name might remain but the concept of freedom and liberty with justice for all would cease to exist. It is on that basis that I urge opposition to any measure that would alter even one word of The Constitution of the United States of America.

    We simply cannot afford to contemplate any of these ideas no matter how they are presented or by whom. Preserving all that is America is the most important thing we can do for future generations. I believe the extraordinary men who brought us this nation said it best – “we have given you a republic – if you can keep it”. That man was Benjamin Franklin, who was born a subject of the British Crown, but who died a free man as a result of his part in forming the fledgling nation of the United States of America – and I think he had more on the ball than Mr. Cuban and his contemporaries.

  • Randy Allen May 31, 2019, 8:08 am

    “…powers not delegated to the federal government via the Constitution belong to the people and the states. ” Explain to me how the 2nd Amendment can be regulated by the state. It states it’s case plainly in the Constitution. If states started regulating free speech, rights to vote. freedom of religion, EVERYONE would be raising hell. The 2nd gets abused all the time and it is okay? The 2nd is the glue that holds the Constitution together. Without it, the whole country is at risk. Our elected Federal officials swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America…..well, except for the 2nd Amendment. There are the grounds for impeachment of 50% of Congress!

  • Singleshotcajun May 31, 2019, 4:47 am

    Notice this fake Texan says A gun, singular. Shut up Marky,we do not need or want your “help”. .

  • SuperG May 30, 2019, 10:14 am

    Ah, good old cowardly Cuban. His chain of movie theaters was the first to kowtow to the North Koreans and refuse to show The Interview. The only thing I’d give him would be a quart of yellow paint for his belly.

  • Will Drider May 30, 2019, 12:42 am

    Would Mr. Cuban please state why A Constutional Right “of ALL United States CITIZENS ” should be restricted by a persons “Location” within any of United States? How about eliminating the Right to Free Speach in N.Y. and the Right to Vote in CA?

    If “Rights” aren’t universally recognized and protected in ALL STATES: they are merely permissions granted or denied by States that are not Lawfully positioned between the individual and those Constitutional Rights, much less those God Granted!

  • Forrest Adcock May 29, 2019, 4:27 pm

    Under that policy, what keeps Alabama from deciding that other civil rights can be infringed and bringing back slavery?

    Mark Cuban should stick to whatever he actually does all day and leave politics to people who aren’t quite as stupid.

    • Retnavet May 31, 2019, 6:46 am

      What that idiot does all day is sit around and pretend he’s outsmarted everyone into believing he’s not a full blown libtard….and constantly alert media types to the fact that he can pay them to record and publish his blatherings

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend