There Are No “Reasonable Restrictions” on the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton! – Canada Free Press

View the Original Post 2nd Amendment

Follow by Email

I guarantee you Hillary Clinton will continue Obama’s legacy

All rights come from God.  We are born with them.  They are unalienable, which means no power on Earth can take them away.  They stay with us for life.  All rights are individual, and they are absolute within the context of the right.  If rights are not absolute, then they aren’t a right at all.  If one aspect of a right can be shed, then so can the whole right.  If a right can be “interpreted,” then it can be interpreted out of existence.  One right that is universal and a natural right is the right of self-preservation.  Included in that is the right of self-defense.  Implicit in that is the right to possess the implements to defend oneself.  It is because rights are absolute that the right to the implements of self defense can not be touched by government.  Because if the implements (arms) could be touched (infringed), then the right wouldn’t be absolute, and therefore wouldn’t be a right at all.  Which is why there is no such thing as a “reasonable restriction” on a right.

The Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land.”  It is a limitation on, and an operating manual for, the Federal Government.  It comes from the people, and is our “consent” to be governed.  The people are always supreme to the government.  The Constitution, through the consent of the people, is supreme over any law, any court decision, including the Supreme Court, any executive action on any level, any action by law enforcement, and any bureaucratic action.

The Constitution contains some enumerated rights that the Founding Fathers thought so important as to specifically include as the Bill of Rights.  One of those rights is the Second Amendment.  It does not give anyone the right to own and carry firearms.  As explained above, we already have that right from God by birth.  The Second Amendment is a specific prohibition on government, at any level, from touching the most extreme edge of the right to own and carry arms.  That’s what it means to “infringe.”  The “fringe” is the absolute extreme edge.

The flawed argument on the Left is that, “common sense” or “reasonable restrictions” can be put on the Second Amendment.  They can not!  Because those laws and regulations are infringements, and infringements are illegal.  The justification for these illegal infringements are the horrible criminal and terrorist acts committed using firearms.  Let me make this as clear as I can.  THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIMINAL ACTIONS, AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY THEM!  This is the huge disconnect that no politician on our side is enunciating.  The Second Amendment only covers and protects the law abiding citizen.  It does not cover the criminal, or the terrorist.  Criminals are covered by criminal law, and by separate constitutional rights of the accused.  There is no legal connection between the right to own and carry guns, the actions of criminals and terrorists, and the prosecution of criminals and terrorists by law.  To state that you can put reasonable restrictions or common sense laws on the Second Amendment, which is legally impossible, only makes sense if you believe that everyone who owns a gun is a criminal or a terrorist, and therefore it is “reasonable” to “restrict” them, because that is just “common sense.”  That is a complete disconnect from reality, and from Constitutional Law, and it is exactly what Hillary Clinton believes.

As stated before, the right to own and carry firearms is absolute.  Any law, decision, or regulation, that touches the right to own and carry any firearm is unconstitutional.  The right to “USE” firearms is not absolute.  Therefore the Second Amendment protection on the right to own and carry ends the instant one uses, or commits to use a firearm.  At that instant the use has one of two possibilities — legal, and illegal.  It is only in the “illegal use” of a firearm where the government can act.  If you are robbing a bank with a gun, or you are driving with a gun to a bank with the intent to rob it, then you have crossed into the criminal use of a firearm, and are not protected by the Second Amendment.  If you want to exercise your freedom by carrying the symbol of your freedom by putting a gun in a holster and walking down the street, the Second Amendment guarantees that no government entity will touch you.  The fact that this is violated by law enforcement, laws, regulations, and judicial actions, proves that we are not a government of the people, but rather, a people of the government.  Hillary Clinton wants to absolutely control a people of the government with an all powerful government.

There are two flawed approaches by the major parties regarding the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.  Justices who are so-called “strict constructionists” or “originalists,” as represented by Justice Scalia, are the goal of the GOP.  They hope to preserve the Second Amendment with the opinions of future judicial appointees.  Hillary and the Left want activist justices to interpret the Second Amendment out of existence.  They are both wrong.  The truth is that neither the Supreme Court, nor any court, should be interpreting the Constitution, because it’s not a constitutionally delegated power for the Judiciary to do so, which means that power doesn’t legally exist.  It only exists in practice because supreme court justices enjoy and use their usurped power, and because almost no one knows that this power isn’t delegated by the Constitution.  It was taken by the Supreme Court for themselves, and is still taken, every day they are in session.  If you really want to bring about the original intent of the Founders, then the Supreme Court has to be dissolved, all current members removed, and the Court reconstituted as a body that employs only the powers delegated to it in Article 3 of the Constitution, with justices that swear an oath to remain within the limitations of Article 3, and actually do so.

Had we never allowed justices to start interpreting the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in this mess.  No court has ever given the Second Amendment anything like the absolute status it enjoys all by itself.  Every interpretation takes something from the Second Amendment and hands it to the government—including the Heller decision.  The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be interpreted, the Second Amendment just needs to be read.  So long as we allow supreme court justices and federal judges to review the constitutionality of laws, and to interpret the Constitution, we will have a judiciary that empowers itself with no check on its power, and the Second Amendment will never be in full force, or in force at all.  The people are supreme to the government.  Therefore representatives of the people in court are the only ones who can rule on the constitutionality of laws.  Judges and justices represent the government, and are governed by the Constitution, which is why they can’t legally rule on or interpret the Constitution.  Only when juries as representatives of the people in court, approve or nullify laws, is this a government of the people, and not a government of the Judiciary.

Continued below…

And so for Hillary and the Left, here is the Second Amendment in modern language.  “A well equipped citizen army, not connected to any government entity, being necessary to secure a state of freedom, the individual right of the people to own and carry guns and other small arms, regardless of whether they are in a citizen army or not, shall not be touched in any way by government, even at the extreme fringe.”  Regarding the citizen, non-governmental army known as the Militia.  The government hates, condemns, arrests, prosecutes, demonizes, confiscates, entraps, and does everything to destroy not only the militias out there, but the very idea of the Militia.  Why?  Because the Militia is the constitutionally guaranteed civilian armed force “necessary” to the security of a free state, or as I read it, as maintaining the state, or condition, of freedom.  The Second Amendment puts in our supreme law of the land that the citizenry, by necessity, must maintain a stronger military force than the government, as a condition of freedom.  And that is a position that no government official or officer is ever going to uphold.

Remember when Obama called for a civilian defense force every bit as big as the military?  Have you seen the reports of how heavily armed virtually every federal department has become, with millions of rounds of ammunition at their disposal?  Would it be fair to say that this is the Second Amendment in reverse, and that to maintain a condition of freedom the citizenry by necessity has to form an even larger and better equipped independent force than any civilian defense force formed by the government?  That the government force must be inferior, in order for the citizenry to remain superior to the government, by being superiorly armed to the government?  And, that this superior citizen military force is actually guaranteed by the Second Amendment prohibiting the government from even touching (infringing) on the necessary, well-regulated (equipped) Militia?  Does anyone in their wildest dreams believe that Hillary Clinton supports the true power and guarantee of the Second Amendment as stated here?  Would you trust any judge or justice to fully uphold the Second Amendment now that you know its true power?  Has Congress ever passed any law supporting militias in this fashion, or limited the power of the government to arm itself?  You know the answer to all of this.

For that Obama quote on his civilian defense force see the site below.  I guarantee you Hillary Clinton will continue this legacy.

Remember, the right to own and carry any firearm is absolute and can not be touched.  The action of using firearms is not absolute, and is governed by common sense laws of what is a legal, and what is an illegal use of a firearm.  Juries are the only body with the power to legally consider what is constitutional and just, from the laws and actions of government.  Now that’s reasonable.  It is not only reasonable, but constitutionally necessary and guaranteed for the citizenry to be better armed than the government, to maintain a state of freedom.  This is what the Second Amendment is all about.

For related articles by me, please see:

Why Judges are Incapable of Ruling on the Second Amendment
Enforcing the Second Amendment
A Miranda Instruction for Jurors on the right of Jury Nullification