These powers do NOT extend into a limiting of our rights that would, in turn, result in amassing more power unto them - the government. They have the power to pass laws that protect us from those that aim to inflict harm on us (criminals).
Not sure exactly where you are coming from. For the most part the federal gov't under the Constitution is a government of enumerated powers. If the power is not listed then the federal gov't cannot do that action, but if it is listed they can exercise that power and in such a way to limit individual rights. For example if you made copies of DVD's protected by Federal Copyright you could be held liable or event sent to jail.
The states under the Constitution for the most part are not governments of enumerated powers. Basically unless the 14th amendment and through incorporation through the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights say an individual right is protected, the state can regulate anything. For example, a state could do its own version of Obamacare and not have issues of Constitutionality because the states are not limited by enumerated powers inthe Constitution.
Our government does not, EVER, grant us liberties. Liberty, as defined under the constitution are OURS. The constitution does NOT, by any means, grant us our liberties. It protects them. The only time our liberties can be restricted is if we violated that law; laws that are designed to protect us from harm. No laws should be passed by this government that uses the guise of protecting us while restricting the rights of those that exercise those rights in a moral and law-abiding way.
Again, I disagree. The federal gov't can restrict a liberty anything they properly use an enumerated power. The states can restrict liberties unless it such restriction violates the Constitution because it violates some other provision of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment) or conflicts with federal law. If a state wanted to ban red hats they probably could.
In other words, if a crime is committed, that individual should have their liberties repealed; that does not demand our government repeal the rights of EVERYONE ELSE in order to prevent such crimes from ever happening again. THAT is not the role of government; nor is it even remotely the intent of the constitution.
I am not sure that even logically follows. If somebody committed a crime, they didn't commit a crime because they killed somebody. Rather they committed a crime because they violated a statute that prohibited them from killing other people. If they lived in Antarctica, where lets say hypothetically there are no laws and they killed somebody they would not have committed a crime. Thus in order for somebody to have committed a crime a statute already has to have existed and if the statute already existed, the statute is limited individual's liberties.
Overall I think you are running to far with the theme that the Constitution was designed to protect individual liberties. To some extent, most of the founding fathers believed in natural law, so they believed citizens had rights and it was an abuse when gov't's violated those rights. You get a good dose of that from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. However, the actual framework for drafting the Constitution was the Constitutional convention was framers were looking to fix the defects with the Articles of Confederation. The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was not so much the gov't was trampling on rights but that the federal gov't was so weak it could not accomplish anything. For example it didn't have the right to lay taxes, it had to beg money from the states. So the immediate issue at hand was developing a better balance the federal and state governments. Unfortunately the federal gov't has become a lot stronger than the drafters envisioned compared to the states government.