“Reasonable Restraint” – is a misnomer

I do not know the author of this piece.  But, most of it appears to have been written by one person, with others contributing.  PLEASE READ THIS, understand it, and pass it on.  It is extremely important in the debate about “gun control”.

There will be no compromise on the Second Amendment.  Here’s the article:

“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 thateven 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.”

Advertisements

40 Reasons To Ban Guns

40 Reasons To Ban GunsArguments Made By Liberal Lawmakers
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York , DC , Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC ‘s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis ‘ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.

14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”

27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

 

Unintended Consequences

The law of unintended consequences illuminates the perverse unanticipated effects of legislation and regulation.

In the social sciences, unintended consequences are outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended by a purposeful action. The term was popularized in the twentieth century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton.

UnintendedConsequences is what happens when you attempt to remove the Rights of Free people, because a few loud mouths with zero understanding of history yell louder than the rest of us.

Stand up and be heard.  Shout down the Democrats, Liberals and ignorance of the “Student Protesters” to Congress.

#UnintendedConsequences

A book for you all to read.  Please understand that you will become Red Pilled even more than you are now if you read this book. Download, save, read and pass on.

Consider this my gift to #III%, #2A#MilitiaGroups#Patriots in the USA.

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/129/Media/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

 

Today, America is Dying

Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
I am going to strongly suggest some points of action here, and I will leave them up to you to do, or not do as you choose.
 
Our Freedoms are under assault this very moment in Washington, DC by Children who have been allowed/forced to walk out of High School and scream about gun control, the NRA and “Assault Weapons”.
 
If you think this is something that is going to blow over, you’re sorely mistaken.
 
This mess has been organized by some group of Marxist/Leftists with money, time and “community organizing skills” – I do not know who, everyone guesses, and I’m sure someone is right, but I have no personal knowledge.
 
What I DO know and Understand is that we are looking at the final days of America unfolding in front of us right this very moment.
 
Thousands of Children have been turned into a Mob. They are being controlled by their emotions. They will not stop, if they are spurred onward by the Leftist/Marxist crowd that is guiding them now.
 
I strongly suggest – we get organized now.
 
Locate others in your OWN AREA and meet personally, vet one another, and prepared because the time is coming when you will not be sitting at your computers any longer.
 
Organize NOW. Train, NOW.
 
Do not delay, do not wait, prepare for the worst and pray for American.
 
God watch over us all, and may God Bless the Constitution and the United States of America.

Confiscation? Now…

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/gun-confiscation-center-opens-seattle/

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/07/seattle-police-begin-nazi-style-gun-confiscation-no-laws-broken-no-warrant-no-charges/

Apparently it has started.

AAFES, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service has apparently begun removing “military grade” weapons accessories from their shelves.  Not sure in what this is response to yet.

aafes

Trying to understand what day the People will stand up and say “ENOUGH!”

 

Confiscation Begins

Vermont has approved, 30-0, a measure allowing police to confiscate weapons.

The proposal, which passed with a 30-0 vote, states a police officer could seize firearms from an individual if they were determined to be a risk to themselves or others, WCAX-TV reported.

 

https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2018/02/1071424-vermont-approved-proposal-police-guns/

Second Amendment is an Individual Right – NOT Militias

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/02/27/supreme-court-ruled-in-2008-that-second-amendment-applies-to-individuals-not-militias-and-may-include-military-weapons/

 

Apparently, the Left wants nothing more than to change already existing laws to something they can better digest.

For instance, if you have a law that says “Murder is illegal”, they want it to read “Murder is illegal, except if we do it to babies by aborting them, but you can’t buy a gun to defend yourself”.  Kind of like that.  A non-sequitur of sorts in the law makes them happy.

Above at that link you will find that the US Supreme Court has stated CLEARLY that owning weapons, including “military weapons” is an individual right.  You can’t change this. It is immutable.

And yet, the Left is going batshitzcrazy today over guns, gun rights, AR15s and “military weapons” – which the AR15 isn’t.