Nothing I have written has contradicted itself; you can try rereading it when you're not inebriated.
Actually you have…see definition to liberty above.
For centuries, the laws of Western countries have guaranteed many liberties for their citizens, but they have also conferred duties upon them.
No disagreement there, but do you know what those duties are?
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every things else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. -Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788
I don't know where you got the idea that one's rights shouldn't be taken away in any circumstance, but guess what? They should. Not because of dumb laws (such as the AWB), but because of one's own dumbass actions.
I never said there should be no laws, or that people should not face consequences. What I said is that laws cannot be passed (legally anyway) that counter the United States Constitution. The States (i.e. not the federal government) has the right to pass laws that deal with state specific issues; this is where the licensing you brought up before comes into play. The point I was making about criminals and mentally ill, is that criminals and mentally ill who cannot be trusted with their liberties (freedom) should not be among the population.
Commit a murder? You lose your freedom. Molest a kid? You lose your freedom, and you lose the right to be around kids. Maliciously and repeatedly hack government and/or private websites? You lose some of your rights when it comes to what you access on computers/the internet.
Okay so you are saying we should send these types of people to prison for a period, allow them back into the population, and then say “oh by the way you can’t do any of this now”? Who is going to enforce it? Why let them out in the first place if they are not able to be trusted with their liberty? I am on the extreme other end to be honest, people who cannot be trusted with their liberties because their crime was so extreme, they should in fact, be put to death. Why keep someone alive, who we know will commit the same crimes? Why pay to keep them imprisoned if we know they can never be released?
All those examples show how you can lose your rights, because of YOUR OWN stupid actions. No one should be able to go around doing stupid shit and not being prevented from doing it again. If you disagree with this, excuse me while I go facepalm myself for about half an hour.
LOL, anyone who has paid any attention to my posts around here knows I am all about personal responsibility and accountability.
Now then, what about if your neighbor gets diagnosed as a psychopath on the verge of a causing a bloodbath? I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to deduce that maybe it'd be a good idea to temporarily suspend his rights to bear arms... until/if he's given the all-clear. Go ahead and correct me, if you think that you'd feel safe having your family around him.
If my neighbor is diagnosed as psychopath, I expect him to be committed to a mental health treatment facility, by the courts, and treated for his/her illness. I do not expect to see that neighbor again until they have been successfully treated for said illness. However, I really don’t see how suspending his/her liberty, while not institutionalizing him/her is supposed to make me safe. Maybe I am a bit ignorant, but I believe as part of my duties in sustaining my liberties, is providing protection for myself and family. Thus I keep a gun on me at all times, in case one of my neighbor (or anyone for that matter) turns out to be a homicidal psychopath. Furthermore, It becomes a non-issue if everyone would take personal responsibility for their own and families safety and arm themselves.
What about if he's got a history of violent gun crime? Gee, I'm going to have to go with the same as above.
Again, what is he doing out and about if he is known to commit violent "gun" crimes?
Let's stop with this "I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences" bullshit. Our constitutions, declarations, etc, aren't guarantees to act like self-righteous pricks who are a danger to others' liberties. Our rights can, and should, be taken away from us if we don't accept our duties.
Where did I post in this thread that "I can do whatever I want and not face any consequences"?
The only person here who has no idea of what liberty is, ironically, is you. The fact that you can't grasp that your liberty ends where the next person's liberty begins speaks volumes.
LOL, I fully grasp that infringment of another persons liberty is against the law. Do you?
I'm tired of sugarcoating it. Your infantile reasoning says that the kid who committed this massacre should've been able to own guns just like anyone else. I'm actually angry at this stupidity.
I think you should check your fire there hero, I never posted such a thing.
Edit: and I'm actually going to quote myself to put this whole post into perspective:
