What is a "fundamental right"

[Mo0o]

I always found the term interesting because we as a society really enjoy making proclamations of whether so-and-so is a fundamental right, but the definition of a fundamental right is quite nebulous. If we declare, as a society, that something is a "fundamental right", does that mean we should protect that thing at all costs? Can there be instances or caveats to such a statement? But if there is a caveat, does that still make it a fundamental right?

Take the right the bear arms. Does that include any and all arms? I think many 2nd amendment supporters would see the NYC ban on personal firearms as a violation of a fundamental right. But what about the right to own an RPG, or a cruise missile, or a nuclear weapon? Should those not also fall under our right to bear arms?

I'm not trying to single out the 2nd amendment in any way, but merely thought of it as an example. This can be extracted to anything, like the "right to free speech" etc etc.

 

[Lithium381]

I think at least in your example of the restrictions on the 2nd amendment in NY it comes down to a fundamental right of self defence. Having a handgun with 15 rounds is certaintly within that realm. Restricting it to 7 reduces your ability to defend yourself. An RPG or a cruise missile, at least in my POV is NOT a personal self defense weapon. Of course it can be said to be used in a defensive manner, but not by a person. Nukes, tanks, etc are not PERSONAL self defence.


And yes, things that are fundamental rights should be protected. The right to have an opinion and voice it of course! A right to self defence, yep! Fundamental = basic rights of humans, in my interpretation.

 

[Craig234]

No right is absolute. Some are given higher priority than others.

I don't know how Louisiana, which passed guns being a 'fundamental right', defines the term legally.

But a point of 'fundamental right' IMO is to try to say it's important and not easily removed for not much reason.

 

[Mo0o]

I think at least in your example of the restrictions on the 2nd amendment in NY it comes down to a fundamental right of self defence. Having a handgun with 15 rounds is certaintly within that realm. Restricting it to 7 reduces your ability to defend yourself. An RPG or a cruise missile, at least in my POV is NOT a personal self defense weapon. Of course it can be said to be used in a defensive manner, but not by a person. Nukes, tanks, etc are not PERSONAL self defence.


And yes, things that are fundamental rights should be protected. The right to have an opinion and voice it of course! A right to self defence, yep! Fundamental = basic rights of humans, in my interpretation.

It's always seemed to me that we make very grand statements on things that should be fundamental rights but can never hope to follow through because there are way too many exceptions and caveats.

If you say someone has a fundamental right to self defense, do you need to stipulate what tools someone can and can not use to pursue that right? Should I be able to own a fully auto AK47, if I think this is the best tool to use for self defense?

And again, I really dont want this to be a debate about gun ownership. I just always found it interesting that we say a lot of things are fundamental rights but end up slapping a lot of exceptions to those statements

 

[Lithium381]

If you're a responsible citizen, I would have nothing against it.(for the AK)

As Craig said, it's not that they cannot be violated, just that there should be a MUCH higher reason to do so. . if I'm reading Craig correctly