Felons don't "serve time" and they don't "pay their debt to society", they are locked away for the protection of others. Other punishments exist, all revolving around forfeiture of rights, also for the protection of others. Its not a guarantor, but it greatly increases the risk to the perp.
If society can take away a felon's life or liberty, they can choose to do lesser punishments, which by nature restrict their rights. Perhaps a purse snatcher can have a 25 pound ball chained to their leg. You may think killing them or life in prison is best for a purse snatcher, but I don't.
All or nothing punishment makes no logical sense. If a man shows a history of animal abuse, banning him for life from owning animals makes more sense than paying $45k a year to house him away.
Don't like what is considered a felony? Change the laws. Ceasing to punish all felons because you think some crimes don't deserve the stigma isn't exactly brilliant, nor is it a winnable political strategy.
The "F" in "BATFE" is only there because of the mistaken notion that one can deprive dangerous criminals of guns.
Without this nonsensical idea, we wouldn't have mandatory serial numbers on guns, FFLs, gun registration, "Not Unsafe" handgun rosters, ten-day waiting periods, DROS transfer fees, and hundreds of pages of other infringements.
The presumption that an otherwise free person no longer has an unalienable right to defend himself, his family, or his community is FALSE. A free man is always justified in defending himself from unjustified force and denying him the tools to do so is an unjustifiable infringement of that right.
The War on Some Drugs and the War on Some Guns will both result in the loss of our liberty. First it was just the felons who were to be deprived of their guns. Then it was some misdemeanants. Now Kalifornia has a law allowing family members to initiate confiscation on just their say-so that a person is incompetent to own guns. You should not wish to associate with those who support these outrages.