Sacrificing other people's children at the altar of "freedom" isn't "accepting the risks." What risk have you taken?

but you can argue 'for the children' in order to take away any freedom. Politicians do it so often it has become a meme. They are doing it right now to try and ban encryption for example..

I also support freedom of thought. Does it mean I'm responsible for all nefarious crimes thought out in advance? If so, should I get credit for all discoveries made by others?

There are plenty of free countries without a First Amendment -- and saying something even vaguely Nazi-like in some of those countries risks criminal penalty. Furthermore, the absolutist interpretation of free speech we commonly associate with the First Amendment (virtually all speech protected, barring speech that causes immediate or imminent harm like threats, fighting words, and CSAM) has only really prevailed since 1969. I mean, immediately after the Bill of Rights was Ratified, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Anyway, I don't believe that owning a firearm without a license and strict government oversight is a right.

> There are plenty of free countries without a First Amendment -- and saying something even vaguely Nazi-like in some of those countries risks criminal penalty.

This sounds like an extreme exaggeration, do you have a source to back that up? I've heard similar said about Canada, for example, but I've familiarized myself with the legislation and some case law and there is a very high bar to getting somebody a slap on the wrist.

you have full right to live your life dangerously but you have no right to put others lives in danger.

Unfortunately while that's an easy and vague statement to say, getting into the detailed implementations of what you're trying to say becomes difficult.

> The next obvious target is speech

In context this is supplemental to violent suppression of minorities.