I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.

> I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades

What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom.

> because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.

Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.

We're hard on crime in texas... Unless you're white. Then we let you castle doctrine your way out of almost anything.

And that's a problem that needs addressing on its own merits, with different circumstances and a different solution.