As a businessman and personality, entrepreneur Mark Cuban is somewhat tolerable. Like many, however, he needs a “Shark Tank”-type schooling in American history and constitutional civics.

Last week, Cuban, who’s been teasing a 2020 run for president, offered yet another hackneyed Democrat proposal to rewrite the Second Amendment out of our Constitution and our history.

His three-pronged plan is: First, the Constitution be rewritten to state that every American citizen has the right to own a firearm; second, the federal government can never confiscate legally owned firearms; and third, states should have the right to oversee and manage how restrictive or, ahem, liberal gun laws should be. I say “liberal” because our Founders were America’s original liberals; I rarely call Democrats liberals because, well, do most Democrats remind you of Washington or Jefferson?

I doubt Cuban has ever read the one-sentence text of the Second Amendment – a sentence deliberately kept terse. The more words, the fewer our freedoms to exercise our rights.

When I analyze Democrat rhetoric and propaganda, I employ a “bull dung” meter which gauges two possibilities: does the Democrat actually believe, or not believe, the “bull dung” he or she is peddling? This is the principle that has guided my narrative that “socialists,” Democratic or otherwise, don’t really believe in the socialism they espouse. They love money and capitalism as much as anyone else. In Cuban’s case, my sense is that he believes the cr*p he says. The only Democrats who frighten me more than the ones who don’t believe the balderdash they cheerlead are the ones who do.

The people are the militia

For starters, the Second Amendment, ratified Dec. 15, 1791, already makes crystal clear that every American has the right to keep and bear arms. Second, I don’t take umbrage with verbiage that prohibits gun confiscation, although it’s superfluous language. It’s Cuban’s third idea that reveals either gross ignorance of, or intentional disregard for, how the framers intended for our constitution to operate as a legal construct.

Our Tenth Amendment (states’ rights) does not usurp any other amendment. Democrats have gotten away with a treasonous amount of infringement over the last five decades on the Second Amendment, but I believe it’s going to come to a crashing halt for them this year, after the U.S. Supreme Court hears the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City case – a challenge to the city’s ban on transporting licensed, unloaded guns anywhere outside the city, including to weekend homes or shooting ranges. I’m confident the court will rule against New York City, citing its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, as well as its 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision; both affirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms (for the record, it was an utter stroke of genius on the part of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote the Second Amendment, to pen “keep and bear”).

Prediction: the court will clarify the “bear” intent of the Second Amendment, and its most impassioned concurrent voice will be Justice Clarence Thomas, who has, quite accurately, called the Second Amendment a disfavored right. He’s also taken Democrats to task for their cherry-tree chopping away of our right to keep and bear arms. Thomas has publicly said that the Founders unquestionably believed in the right to carry outside the home, and I believe the New York City case will usher in a new Golden Age of firearm rights.

No state should have the authority to prohibit a law-abiding firearm owner from carrying in their state. Constitutional rights equally apply (or are supposed to), irrespective of the state one lives in, or is visiting. The prospect of Thomas reversing generations of Second Amendment Democrat judicial activism, in an election cycle in which former Vice President Joe Biden will likely be the Democrat nominee, is deliciously ironic.

Cuban, a resident of Dallas, Texas, lives in one of the most pro-gun rights states in the Union; if he lived in a state such as New York or California, where obtaining concealed carry permits are almost as difficult as breaking into Fort Knox, it wouldn’t affect his quality of life, because he can afford sniper bodyguards for himself, his wife and three children, as well as the finest home security for his 24,000-square-foot home.

(The question of concealed vs. open is a bona fide Tenth Amendment question. Let individual states determine the answer.)

Few moments are funnier than listening to Democrats such as Cuban prattle on about states’ rights. Guaranteed, any Democrat discussion about states’ sovereignty is a perversion of our Tenth Amendment. Exhibit A: their fetish for on-demand-at-anytime abortion, a right Democrats claim is “absolute.” If abortion is an absolute constitutional right, then so should the capacity of firearm I use. If America will have “my body, my choice,” then we must also have, “my Second Amendment, my machine gun.”

Cuban needs to change the channel from MSNBC and CNN and read the Federalist Papers, especially No. 29, in which Alexander Hamilton wrote that an efficiently trained militia is beneficial to the “public defense” of Americans.

The Second Amendment is where Democrat ideological and judicial tyranny most manifest themselves. Yes, it also shows in their disdain for other constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, due process and states’ rights; but the Second Amendment is the right that has long provoked the most anti-liberty bloodthirstiness amongst Democrats.

We the People are the militia, and the “well-regulated” qualifier of the Second Amendment refers to self-regulation/training, not government regulation. If Cuban were a contestant on “Constitution Shark Tank,” he’d be ridiculed back to the green room in five seconds.

Our constitutional rights are real-world reality, not the make-believe world of reality TV. Government’s duty isn’t to update the Second Amendment; it’s to uphold it. If Cuban doesn’t understand that core, fundamental principle of our republic, or intentionally shuns it – like the activist judges he’d nominate to our federal and supreme courts – then he’s spectacularly unfit to be president.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top

Request an Interview

Subscribe to the

Commentary & Analysis You Won't Hear Anywhere Else!

  • Your information is safe with us! We do not spam.