I disagree. The main issue to me is the conflation of misdemeanor level behavior with felony. Add in the permanency of the ban, and we have the probability that a man (or woman) who loses their temper one time can be permanently prevented from possessing a weapon for self defense.
If the anecdotes and statistics of spurious domestic violence charges during divorce proceedings are even half correct, this is a definite abusive abridgment of what is supposed to be a fundamental constitutional right.
I do agree on your point regarding the need to debate on this site with facts and opinion, as opposed to vitriol.
All that aside, it ignores the fact that the underlying 'law' is contrary to the Constitution.
You see, the Constitution strictly forbids Ex Post Facto law, both at the federal and State level — even by the limited form that the USSC declared wherein only criminal law is so constrained it fails. This is because it added on the prohibition of firearm ownership to people who had already served their sentence or who had been given there sentence and were in the process of paying it off.
Now you might make the argument that it all happened so long ago and all those people are dead (or close to it) and/or a very tiny minority, but that doesn't make the 'law' legitimate.