Husqvarna, (I like your chainsaws, btw
)Europeans may be all about personal liberty, but their documents don’t guarantee it. The problem arises when the State becomes responsible for the well-being of the individual. If the state has the right and responsibility to protect a citizen, it has the ability to choose between citizens, and usually has the ability to choose which qualities of citizens are to be protected. This sets up a condition where liberty exists because of the State allowing it.
In most, if not all, cases in Europe there are 2 types of rights, individual and collective. These rights are supposed to be balanced against each other to yield a civilized liberty. However, the collective rules the nation by proxy through representatives. Therefore, individual rights only exist at the whim of the majority. Even freedom of speech, takes terrible abuse in many European States to this day.
One can even note an interesting case of freedom of speech restrained in a particular area, and an exception to a national gun ban in that same area. This causes an outsider to wonder if these things are related, and are a purposeful attempt to subdue an element of the population deemed undesirable by the State.
Here in the US, there are also 2 types of rights that are often confused with one another.
Immunities are those rights of the individual that are immune from government regulation. These can be called the natural rights of man and include things like self-protection as well as innumerable others. In all natural rights, whether they are to life, property, interaction with others, beliefs, etc … your natural right is…. To keep what is yours, to use it as you see fit, and to strive for more or success (as you define it.)
Privileges are those rights that come into existence by the creation of government, and can be regulated by government. They are our "manufactured rights" (similar to European individual rights) and defined by government.
With privileges, you have the right to use them in the ways the government defines as correct.
Success, expansion, and security are never rights in and of themselves, but a goal governed by a judgment of natural law. The government exists as a way to integrate the individual into society rather than add him to the whole. This is done by balancing rights between individuals.
In the real world though, there’s only one difference between European and American individual rights. In Europe, their loss is due to the natural progression of the legal system of government. In America, their loss is due to politicians breaking Constitutional principles; which is a case of government breaking the People’s law, written to regulate the government.
We Americans don’t like to admit it much, but we were English then, and many of our patriots supported the monarchy until it became obvious that we would not receive representation in Parliament. Even then, some revolted reluctantly. There were also diehard Loyalists, some of whom later enlisted with the British. Conscripts weren’t the only colonists in the British army.
Although there were many protest actions leading up to the revolution, the hot war didn’t begin until the British attempted to disarm the colonists at Lexington. Basically the colonists waited until the last moment to rebel … when their means of self protection and rebellion was threatened. In that action, the people were reserving the natural right to revolt against a tyrannical government (a derivation of self-protection). From then, until the formal beginning of the revolution with the Declaration of Independence, the representatives were still petitioning England for redress of grievances.
IMHO: In the 13 colonies, there was no single overwhelming issue that led to revolt, but all issues had one thing in common, and that was all grievances led to the Crown The religious freedom issue was a matter of signing a paper that was largely ignored. The rates of the taxes objected to on principle were relatively low. The quartering of troops in homes affected a minority of the population. Etc etc … Ultimately, each person was rebelling for his own reasons against a common authority, rather than having special interest factions. Even the revolutionary clubs that were formed promoted general liberty of the individual. When the Committees of Correspondence formed to link them together, the resultant was a decentralized shadow government based in individual liberty.
Combining all of the above with the colonists being well armed from the beginning, the absence of an internal class struggle, and the Atlantic Ocean separating the colonies from England. . … We were able to fight a civil war as if it were a war of invasion; and during the process, the shadow government came out into the light.
And Mr. Bluetrain, the question about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is answered by logic if you view it as an extension of the right of self protection … the answer is self protection in general, including both support of the State and` insurrection (depending upon which is necessary to secure their rights). I think a reading of Federalist #29 would show you this, and more.
For that matter, a reading of the Declaration and Constitution in concert, shows the entire Bill of Rights to be either redundant, or a reaffirmation of topics already covered by logical extension..