describe the limitations of the right to protection
Answers
Answer:
Nothing. It is the individual's right and duty to self-defense. These gun confiscation actions by scoundrel politicians are human rights violations. They want to disarm the law abiding citizen leaving them defenseless to criminals on a false narrative of government protection.
Answer:
There are rights which are perceived to be absolute (although there are schools of thought that disagree). Thus, the right to life and the prohibition of torture (or the right not to be tortured) or the right to freedom of religious belief, constitute absolute rights. Other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression or the right to property or the right to privacy may be limited or restricted to satisfy other interests, usually the public good or the public interest or public security etc.
There are other rights which seem to be in a grey area (in my opinion), such as the right to education which may be restricted for legitimate reasons.
However, these rights and their limitations seem to be very attached to the political system in which the particular country operates and the culture. In the Pretty case, for example, the ECrHR held that the right to life does not incorporate the right to die. This may be regarded as a limitation. In Japan, for example there is the right to die honourably by means of suicide. In Asia, for example (India etc) they embrace much more the collective right and thus restricting an individual right, i.e. the right of the individual is sacrificed for the sake of what they perceive to be a greater good, i.e. the collective good or right.
When two rights conflict, for example, the right to data privacy is restricted for the public interest (e.g. the divulging of information about a particular individual), the principle of proportionality is usually applied by the Courts to make sure that the restriction imposed on the right is proportionate to the aim pursued, i.e. the public interest.
Follow mee