Mark Cuban Solves 2nd Amendment Debate: Keep Your Guns, States Regulate

To be a state in the Union, states must recognize federal rights, including the 2A. That means the state cannot be more restrictive than the Constitution, because the states agreed to the Constitution when they joined the US. The 2nd amendment is the only one that says “shall not be infringed.” That’s plain English to everyone, except people who hate guns, who want to find a way around it. Yes, governments have powers, and individuals have rights, and the reason the individuals have the right to guns, is, in the end, to make sure the government’s power cannot override the peoples’ rights. It gives the citizenry the ability–as both a right and a duty–to resist the government’s power with force when necessary if all else fails and the government gets tyrannical. This is the fundamental reason we have the 2A, and the Founders detail their thoughts on it in the Federalist Papers, not in the Constitution. Self-defense against criminals is only a secondary issue at best. It’s all about fighting the government if they turn bad. That means a state cannot dictate a more restrictive gun control under the Constitution than that which the Constitution already gives them. They can pass less restrictive laws, perhaps, but not more restrictive ones. For example, under the 2A every citizen who is not a criminal and is an adult has a right to own guns. A state could just waive its power and go Constitutional Carry as many are, or open carry, as those are about carry (bearing). But if you read the Constitution literally, all gun laws and restrictions, even those that are currently legal and may even make common sense, like the Firearms Act of 1934, are an infringement. The militia is the People. But those who want “control” will always be opposed to gun ownership because the right to keep and bear arms empowers the people, not them. And that’s why they want it destroyed. I applaud the urge to protect gun ownership under federal law and to reinforce it with legislation. But I am suspicious and decry any attempt to let the states decide they can restrict a federal right locally. The states have no say in this; it’s a Constitutional right, not a state’s right. All states have recognized the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land when they joined the Union. Any attempts to infringe, by gun control groups or state governments, is un-Constitutional and must be rejected and fought every day. Now and forever. If the government–federal or state–starts controlling your rights under the Constitution, it will become tyrannical at some point–they always do. But if you are unarmed, you will effectively be a slave, for you will have given up your power to the state, which someone, somewhere, will eventually abuse. Disarmed, you will have no choice but to obey and comply. And that is not American.

Great wrap-up argument Scott! Many of liberal’s ideas seem to either not think things thru to their logical conclusion or their alterior motive seems to be repression of the minorities. Think abortion, for one. Their ideas sound good, at first glance, but they have no real way of implementing them that works to change things for the better.