That embodiment misses the argument entirely. The argument is whether or not the "you will lose your rights for life" can be applied to a right expressed in the constitution (be it RKBA, or freedom of assembly, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), beyond the period of government supervision imposed under a felony statute.
You are simply asserting that No. 1 is constitutional, without examining its contents.
You are pretty good at pounding the table, but I haven't seen a smidgen of discussion from you that advances the argument.
Any punishment constitutes a loss of freedom, enumerated or not, right? Can we agree on that? So if punishing a criminal is constitutional, then the question is duration of sentence. You assert that the sentence of punishment must equate to a period of incarceration, and cannot be more than that. I see no constitutional basis for that assertion. The constitution does not require that punishment be incarceration, nor does it directly limit the duration of punishment for felonies; so how do you get to where you are at logically?
I appreciate your opinion, and as a nonconstitutional issue, dealing simply with what is just, I think there are logical points that we could agree on. But I can find nothing that limits a state from passing a life sentence that limits a person from working with children, driving heavy equipment, shooting fireworks, or possessing a firearm. Can such restrictions be unreasonable? Sure they can.
You are simply asserting that No. 1 is constitutional, without examining its contents.
True, it is certainly possible that a case could be made for No.1 being cruel and unusual. If that were the argument being made on this thread, I would be inclined to agree on some felonies and disagree on some felonies, but that is not the argument being made. The argument is that a life-long restriction of rights is in itself unconstitutional, and there is simply no basis to support that.
Your problem is that you assume he wants to engage in an intellectual debate instead of just self aggrandizement by ‘beating’ people at arguing. You are clearly wrong.
Your well reasoned and clearly articulated points are misapplied when directed at a certain poster... but thank you for sharing them with the rest of us.