True Freedom Vs Percieved Freedom or USA V UK

Its amazing how often the British criticise America's Policies, especially considering that they have nowhere near the freedom that we do.
Alan Moore, Warren Ellis, and many other British born authors love to critique America's policies in their works, often with the implication or outright assertion that somehow America is less free.

But lets examine the evidence shall we?

The most Basic freedoms are
1 - The Freedom to speak, also known as freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Now many libs will try to tell you ours have been silenced, or abridged, that if you speak out here in America you'll be rounded up by those evil neo-cons. The fact that they all express these and far more outrageous claims in Blogs, Newspapers, personal conversation etc. never seems to register. Even when Major American newspapers divulge classified anti-terrorism programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program ( Which BTW had to be disbanded despite solid results once it was "exposed" as its success relied on the terrorists not knowing about it. ) there was never even an official hint that there would be any investigation or charges levelled.
But can the same be said of The UK?
Well not if you investigate Muslims clerics spreading hate. Granted the police ended up being reprimanded, but ask yourself this, if The UK really had freedom of speech in the way we do, would they have investigated the news program in the first place?
Hmm.
Its Also not an isolated event as cane be seen here, IN Britain, Theatres get shut down when Artists offend, IN the US artists who offend get sponsored by the NEA
Finally lets ask the those unfortunate Britishers who don't, as Mr Ellis does, have the luxury of
living in America.

OK So As Far as Freedom of Speech is Concerned USA 1 Britain 0

How about the Second most fundamental right of any Free Nation, The right to bear arms?
Now I know many of you, particularly those living in the barbaric non-American countries, might argue that the Freedom to Bear Arms is not fundamental, which only shows how much of the kool-aid you have drunk. So let me explain why the Second Amendment, which Guarantees the peoples right to bear arms is so important.

Its got nothing to do with hunting, or even with defending your life or your property from criminals. The gentlemen who fought a guerrilla war against the British Army for their freedom (and won) made the right to bear arms second only to the right to speak freely, because they understood that unless the people always had access to the weapons they would need to overthrow their newly formed government, it would never be truly free. All the legalistic posturing about the preamble to the second misses the point that to the founders, the "militia" was every able bodied member of the governed. IE "The People". Furthermore having recently defeated the British empire primarily because of men who had used their own personal rifles to fight, they understood that in a country where men could not bear arms such a thing would be impossible.

Now do I even need to cite evidence as to which of the two nations in question guarantees its citizens the "Right to Bear Arms?

SO Far it USA 2 UK 0

Lets keep going shall we?

The Third Amendment is a wash, since neither the USA nor Britain ejects people from their homes so soldiers can live there, but what about the fourth?

Ahh here's where the Britophiles think they have us violent reader. After all they only have to say two words right?
Patriot Act.
Really?
Granted the Patriot Act made it much easier for the US gov to obtain surveillance on suspected terrorists, the most controversial of the provisions allowed agents to search someones library records, begin surveillance without getting a warrant first (although one is still necessary, eventually) and required banks and other financial institutions to report "suspicious transactions" as well as giving the government far more latitude in subpoenaing your financial records (such as your checking account) and a clause making it illegal to speak about the enforcement of such provisions.
Well in terms of getting surveillance its far easier in Britain, whereas the FBI for example must get a warrant, the British authorities need only "complete a written application, which is considered by a designated individual within the body or agency" under the the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000" IN fact this act, passed before 9.11 is where the idea of allowing the FBI to conduct surveillance after submitting a request to a judge came from. Only the British don't even have to apply to a judge, in order for the FBI to have the same latitude, they would only need to ask the Director of the FBI if it was OK.
Profiling? Legal in Britain.
Detention without charge?
48 hours in the US
28 days in Britain.
Separation of Powers? Us Only.
Right to be silent when arrested?
Severely restricted by Section 2 of the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, partially restored by the 1998 human rights act.
US interpretation - You have the right to remain silent.
British version - "The failure of any person charged with an offence … to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution”

So to recap, No freedom of speech, only the freedom to engage in non-offensive speech. No Right to bear Arms. Not even the "tattered and frayed" privacy protections of the US. (not to mention more security cameras per-capita, and high tech software to make the cameras smart than anywhere int he world.) No right to remain silent.
But then are we surprised? This is the same country that AFTER WW2 passed a law allowing the government to tell people what job they could have. (in the name of social justice of course)

So as far as the most basic rights necessary for a free society, Britain is, and always has been, far less free. Maybe that's why old Warren lives in the US eh?

So Next time you hear some euro-trash talking about how bad we have it, tell him to shut the fuck up and go back to a "free country" if he can find one.