Ok. I fail to understand.
Understanding the American Bill of rights was part of the Enlightment movement that toke place all over european nations at that time which also came to the New America. If one say the Bill of rights should protest the individual against government the principles of the Enlightment movement was the same. However thats has nothing to do with God. These sets of ideas sets man above as suprême.
Key Enlightenment Ideals
- Reason:
The belief that human reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy.
- Individualism:
The inherent worth and freedom of the individual, emphasizing self-reliance and individual skills.
- Liberty and Rights:
The conviction that individuals possess natural rights and are entitled to freedoms, including the right to self-governance.
- Progress:
The idea that society can and should be progressively improved through reason and scientific understanding.
- Constitutional Government:
The advocacy for governments that are limited and accountable, rather than absolute.
- Separation of Church and State:
A movement to separate religious institutions from governmental power.
- Tolerance:
A general agreement to allow interference that one might consider illegal, applied to religious and political beliefs.
You're bumping in to American Exceptionalism.
Consider it this way: Take away the term "God Given".
Now, try and define "rights inherent in being human". This is what is meant by "natural rights".
What does it mean to be human? What rights to you have for no other reason that you are a human being?
I don't need to be of any religion at all to believe you have rights for no other reason that you are human.
Government doesn't give you these rights, you have these rights because you are human. American Exceptionalism = unlike previous governments that were developed and then forced on the populace, the populace placed LIMITS on the government. Among those limits, the government, as designed, simply does not have the authority to establish a religion or
prohibit the free exercise thereof. It does not have the authority to limit what the press (information media of any type), the ability to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or for that matter, self defense.
Much ink has been spilled over the second amendment, but I will add some bytes.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..." In other words, to ensure state sovereignty, your military had damn well better be well trained. Considering that earlier the document states that Congress shall build and maintain a Navy, and may in fact establish an Army, but it cannot be funded for more than two years at a time, you still need a well trained militia. Having been through it all, I can tell you the most difficult thing to train a militia to do is be adept at marksmanship. Yes, there are other skills that are important, training in the use of arms takes a bit more time and effort. So having access to firearms for everyone who is going to use them is probably a good idea.
Oh, and who IS the militia anyway? Well, that's not in the document, but remember that part where Congress can build and maintain a Navy, and establish an Army? They do that via US Code Title X, in paragraph 246, clearly states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." You can try and argue that once you hit 45 you're too old for the amendment to apply, but I really don't think you want to go there.
So "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In simple terms, the right exists (inherent in being human), and the government shall not infringe that.
Also, keep in mind that in other places, only "gentlemen" were allowed to carry swords, or dirks, or other implements (to include firearms). This flips that on its head: it's not "you have to rate the ability to carry", rather you have that right just because you are a human being.
Of course, there is the argument that "modern weapons" were not imagined by the authors. But would anyone also like to use that logic with prohibiting, say, a television camera, or even the ability to print a photgraph with your printing press? For that matter, to publish electronically as we are here?
You're right, this is different than the way other countries in the world do it. It's the exception to the rule. That's why it's called "American Exceptionalism".
www.breitbart.com
youtube.com
)....
