[dayglored]

> Not all of us agree that a convicted felon should get his right to tote guns back ~ and most certainly not when he used a weapon in the commission of the crime.

To be honest, I agree. I brought up the difficult logical point in my initial comment, because I usually find myself in the minority position (among FReepers) with regard to felons getting their rights back.

I tend more toward the position of, "You screwed up and committed a crime. The results of that crime are still around. Sorry, you don't get all your rights back, just because you've completed your sentence."

On many threads, that position draws me a lot of flak, though.

[Little Ray]

You are not in the minority. The “restore felons’ RKBA” types are just very noisy.

[muawiyah]

There are those people who mistakenly believe that the punishment should end at the end of the period of confinement. Plenty of laws extend the punishment on for the remainder of one's life ~ like embezzling money. Some states explicitly prohibit bonding companies from writing bonds for someone like that for any purpose ~ they couldn't get a paper route! Other states don't.

Pedophiles are usually released, if at all, under lifelong rules regarding contact with children.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

“You screwed up and committed a crime. The results of that crime are still around. Sorry, you don’t get all your rights back, just because you’ve completed your sentence.”

The way I see it, I don’t think that depriving felons of guns is wrong per se, but the arbitrary way it is done is. Being deprived of their guns should be an explicit part of their sentence. I.E. ‘X was sentenced to 10 years in prison for armed robbery and is prohibited from owning or using guns for 25 years/life or whatever’.