>

There are several reasons for people to be imprisoned. One is punishment (of the criminal); one is protection (of everyone else). Removing the right to own a weapon protects other people even after the punishment has been served. Just because someone has served their time doesn't mean we want to put the public immediately at risk. It's why some white collar criminals are barred from certain financial operations and why sex offenders have restrictions put on them. It's why parole exists.
Or you could look at it another way: if someone is in the 1% of the population that has demonstrated the ability to end another person's life, giving that person a gun is really fucking stupid. Like, hiring a child molester to be a babysitter stupid.
How many repeated offenses do you consider necessary to totally remove the right to own a gun?  
And on a separate topic, while guns are the most talked about, "guns" is never technically specified and there are other arms that are still legally available >

To respond to the first point, I would like to answer with anymore than one. One chance after imprisonment is more than enough of a chance and after that, I see no problem with taking away the rights. As for the second point, I believe that they should have access to any weapon of defense any non-felon would have, so I don’t think that changes much. >

I'm a felon who has done a small amount of time (compared to those around me) in prison for non violent petty drug charges. 8 months or so clean now. I'm not gonna try to change your view, just wanted to say you sound like a shit person if you think I, or others in similar situations to what I was in should be in prison the rest of our lives. >

That is an excellent point that the rest of us have been overlooking.
@OP (/u/BlueGhostInky)   Why would the ability to specifically own a gun be more important than being out of prison?  1 year in prison and not having guns after is much more appealing than a lifetime in prison and still no guns. >

I don't think op is actually advocating for felons to be locked up forever. He's trying to make a point that our current system is hypocritical in the way it deals with prisoners and their rights after serving their sentence. Basically what he's saying is, if after serving your sentence you're still forced to live with what they seem to believe is continued punishment. If our justice system were to truly focus on reforming prisoners, they should regain their rights after serving their sentence and "proving" they're reformed. (That's a whole different can of worms). But the US prison system isn't focused on reform. It's focused on profit and punishment at this point. I don't really care one way or the other about the second ammendment, but I do think this needs to be addressed for voting rights. Unreal to think you can have your right to vote revoked as a US citizen >

Hyperbolic though it  may be,  it is part of his argument and does need to be addressed. >

I think you're missing the argument he's making of that's what you're focusing on >

No. I understand the argument, I disagree with both the argument and the presentation of said argument. >

If that's the case, why are you trying to compare the importance of owning a fire arm vs imprisonment? It's very clear OP is using that example to point out the flaws of the current prison system and infringement of rights many ex felons face. >

This is absolutely correct and especially important for voting rights
With guns it’s a little bit more problematic as the pragmatic argument still makes sense. But maybe u can see the lack of total access as a additional sentence. The legal system knows more than prision time when it comes to sentences to begin with >

I can see the argument that it follows as an additional sentence, but at that point why not just give them life in prison? How can the state say "this person is too dangerous to access their rights, but not too dangerous to be released into society?" That would be my rebuttal to this postulation. >

But it isn't really lack of access to "rights" its lack of access to a subset of a single right >


ss to a subset of a single righ

I do see your point that it is a single right, but I do not think this changes much. A lack of access to any right is egregious, so it doesn't really matter that it is rights vs. right. >

It kind of does matter as your proposal is just an automatic life imprisonment
  Also, subset of a right. >

I feel as if my opinion has been lost in translation. I am not at all saying that they should be in prison for life. I am saying that the government fails logically when they take away the right. Once again, how can someone be trusted in open society if they can't be trusted with their rights? >

Your sentence as a felon in your example should be amended to "You spend 20 years in prison and you lose some of the rights afforded to the people who never broke societal laws".
I understand that your argument is basically you don't like the second part of the punishment, but I don't know why exactly they would deserve a lesser punishment.
The currently considered 'satisfactory sentence' already is "you do this amount of prison time and you lose the right to gun ownership". 
That already is the punishment, but why should that not be the punishment in your opinion?
Any principle that is "all or none" is generally a bad principle, we don't live in any sort of all or none world.  It really makes no sense to hold as a principle a utopian idea for a world we don't live in. >

I think their gripe is that it's the only right you don't get back. Which isn't even true. If you've completed your sentence and have completed/complied with any parole or probation requirements, you can apply to have your 2a rights reinstated. >

That also isn't entirely true either, a number of states do not have any procedure for that and the only way to get them back is a presidential pardon, which simply isn't a really legitimate option. >

Hmm, that is interesting, and a fair point about being SOL if your state doesn't have a process for regaining stripped rights, because a pardon is (practically) unfeasible. >

I just wanted to point out a few things.
At least in my state a felon can apply to have their gun rights returned after a set number of years depending on if this was a violent crime or not. I believe its 10 years for violent crimes.
A study done a few years ago said that about 75% of felons will be arrested within 5 years.
I think the spirit of this is to allow a grace period but I'll be honest this may be a bit of a leap.
If we are going to keep this back and white, all or nothing I think this comes back to personal philosophy. Do you think it's better to allow someone to protect themselves with the risk of arming someone who's a threat or deny someone the ability to protect themselves in order to keep weapons away from someone who's dangerous. >

To begin, I am not sure about these laws and will look into them more, but I would be willing to be felons are often denied these returned rights even after the allotted amount of time. People should not lose access to a right just on the basis that they 'might' reoffend. Should the latter 25% suffer for the actions of the rest? As to the last point, I do think that the risk of allowing these people to have access to firearms is not enough to justify taking away that right from them. I simply cannot fathom taking away someone's right to defend themselves because of the potential to recommit a crime. This is tantamount to thoughcrime imo.