The liberals will do anything to try and reform the Second Amendment, which gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms in the event that the government becomes hostile – an amendment our forefathers sought to protect American lives against tyranny.
After every mass shooting in the United States, liberals rally together to call the National Rifle Association a “terrorist organization,” they shame any politician who has accepted campaign donations and they mock those that offer up “thoughts and prayers.”
And Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban thinks the Second Amendment should be reformed with these three changes.
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is one of the most famous owners in all of sports because of his background before he bought the team.
Cuban famously became a self-made billionaire when he sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in 1999. Now, he’s one of the hosts of ABC’s “Shark Tank” where they decide which new inventions to invest in.
When asked recently which Democratic candidate for president has a legitimate shot at defeating President Trump in 2020, the “Shark Tank” star said, “Nobody right now.”
Cuban also claimed, “If you look at why people voted for Donald Trump, in my opinion, first and foremost it was because he wasn’t a politician,” and also added, “Politicians are the least trusted of every profession.”
But billionaire Mark Cuban isn’t a liberal. In fact, he’s mentioned that if he were to run for president – and still hasn’t ruled out a bid for commander-in-chief- against Trump in 2020 – Cuban would run as an independent.
Of course, independent candidates have views and policies that land all across the political ideological spectrum.
The Mavericks owner told Yahoo Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer, “I would go to change the Second Amendment in ways that people probably wouldn’t expect. States have the right to manage the ownership — the purchase, ownership, and management — of guns owned and held within their borders.”
The differences between gun laws from state to state would be drastic and it would be confusing to keep up with them if you traveled from your home state to another. One way this could get really complicated is on state-to-state hunting trips; what would happen if you were just traveling through one state that has incredibly strict laws?
Otherwise, states like Texas and Florida wouldn’t have to worry about federal government intervention.
Cuban continued, “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 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.”
But is this realistic?
First of all, it’s not easy to reform an amendment.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. And since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.
Also, A proposed amendment (or change) becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Is it possible? Sure. But is it likely? Not really.