An interesting discussion, but it is the law and the courts have upheld it as a reasonable restriction. Personally, I'm OK with violent felons, non violent felons who are no threat to self or others, not sure there's a compelling reason to restrict their ownership
So that law does not have to follow the Constitution. Then a precedent is set for other laws to do the same. And remember Ayn Rand:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
They’re hard at work trying to accomplish that.