Smart Kid. I wish someone would explain this to these judges and
lawmakers before SHTF. Written by a genius high school senior as an
essay for his history class
Dear America
Here's my mic drop!
“Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint"
which has now become the mantra of our government. Supporters of the
Amendment claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms. Opponents counter that even if that were the case,
the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints
on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception
concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for
ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the
preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal
government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish
this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being
recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called
constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over
individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications
on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated
in the Amendments.
If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was
incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive
clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing
its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is
re-write it through the preamble:
“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe
on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”
The preamble and original intent of the Amendments has been suppressed
by the institutions of government because it would expose their
usurpation of power and perversion of Amendments contained in the Bill
of Rights.
By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people
their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert
enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative,
executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The
federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to
determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the
Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This
assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the
constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove
constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or
convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the
particular restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is
not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the
restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the
Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was
ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or
administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the
case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal
government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the
States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal
power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the
federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the federal government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in
the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights;
it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its
power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The
distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not
given by the Federal Government. Our rights are given by God and are
inalienable.
Therefore they can't be limited or taken away.] As stated in the
Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights
that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By
acknowledging that people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a
creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle that
government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe
on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and
structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government
encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints
on the exercise of power. If the individual rights of the people had
been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then
they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the
existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document
disappeared, so would the right.
The belief that individual rights were created by a written document has
opened the door for the federal government to claim the power to define
the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed
constitutional restraints placed on federal power into subjective
determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government.
By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create
rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American
people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced
to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the
constitutional restraints placed on federal power are being replaced by
government decree.
Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right
enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute.
This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about
imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning
a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In
addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint
imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.”.