George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Does An About Face On The 2nd Amendment

By: Brian Anderson

Mark O’Mara, the lawyer that got George Zimmerman acquitted in the Trayvon Martin shooting, apparently has had a change of heart concerning gun ownership rights in this country. He just penned a piece for CNN.com called I’m A Gun Owner And I Want Gun Control. This thing is just filled with 2nd Amendment atrocities.

He starts out with a loaded premise to frame his anti-gun rant:

We have a problem with gun violence in this country. I think this much is not in dispute.

I can dispute that. We may have a violence problem in this country, but in no way is that the gun’s fault. Why is “gun violence” a thing, but “knife violence” or “fist violence” isn’t? Acts of violence are committed by people. And in actuality, violence and crime in general have been steadily declining since the early 1990’s.

Ignoring the fact that crime is way down, O’Mara has a solution. He admits it’s not the best way, but it must be done:

What do we do about it? Unfortunately, most answers to this question involve greater governmental regulation and intrusion into our lives.

We’ve tried that government intrusion thing and it hasn’t produced any results. What do you say we try a freedom and liberty thing for while and see how that works out?

Then O’Mara tries to get all Constitutional. For a lawyer, he doesn’t know jack squat about the highest law in the land:

The First Amendment — our freedom of speech, of expression, of assembly — is our most fundamental right, but even it is not unrestricted. No matter how strongly we feel, our words cannot be used to incite violence. They cannot be used to further terrorism. We cannot incite panic (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater). We are allowed our freedom of religion, yet we cannot force those religious beliefs on others.

Yes, but we still have all of those words at our disposal. The government hasn’t banned them or taken them out of our vocabulary. It’s when we use words for harm then we are breaking the law, not when we are in possession of them. The same should be true of firearms. There is no preventative enforcement of the 1st Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment says we are secure in our home, and that the government cannot search and seize our effects and paper without probable cause. While we’re free from improper government intrusion, the interpretation of probable cause has loosened over time.

Just because the government is ignoring the 4th Amendment doesn’t mean it’s right or legal. It certainly doesn’t justify walking all over the 2nd Amendment.

And one last misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights:

Buried in the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense..

Really, what effing part of the 2nd Amendment says anything about self-defense? He continues with the anti-gun myth that our Founding Fathers never envisioned the power and capacity of modern firearms so they should be regulated and banned.

To be clear, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about self-defense, black-powder muskets, or government controlled armies. It doesn’t say some infringements are okay. It just says that we have a right to own and carry arms. Period. End of story.

Contradicting himself, O’Mara admits that the 2nd Amendment is infallible which is why he wants to change it:

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Gee, I didn’t know our Bill of Rights had been modified. In any case, I don’t want to test O’Mara’s theory that our rights can be “tweaked” by the government and somehow our freedom’s preserved. 1 through 10 should stay exactly as they are and #2 is going to make sure that happens.

O’Mara finishes up with the BS qualifier that he’s a gun owner, so we should all accept gun control because he’s willing to bow down. Then he kisses Michael Bloomberg’s ass making him seem even less sincere. I wonder if any of Mayor Mike’s $50 million dollar gun control effort found it’s way into the pockets of prominent public figures so they would write blog posts about the need for restrictive firearms laws. Naw, that’s just too crazy to consider, right?