If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.
Some actions are worthy of life time punishment, even loss of rights. Jail time is only one element of punishment.
Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.
Murder ought to be a capital crime; very few of those serving that sentence are repeat offenders.
If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.
And who decides 'inappropriately'? You? The government?
In particular, is pointing a gun at a trespasser commanding that he leave 'inappropriate'? (Some people, and laws, would say yes; others no.)
Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.
That's exactly what I'm saying; but let's take it one step further: do you support the imposition of further punishments for a crime which has had its sentence served? [IE Ex Post Facto & Bill of Attainder law.]
This is exactly what the GCA [or NFA, I get the two mixed up] did: it imposed the "prohibited persons" status on those who were already serving [or had served] their sentences. Therefore, given that it is an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore contraconstitutional in both State and Federal law how can it be that you would consider it valid?