There may be case-by-case extreme situations where possession should be barred even if the person is not institutionalized. However that does not extend to general rules that deny entire classes of people a basic right.
The idea of denying rights to classes of people is a fairly recent development and, unfortuantely, embraced by those who value the mirage of security over their freedom and the freedoms of others.
If you hadn't noticed, more and more RKBA advocates are finding their voices and losing their fear of what our opponents might think or say.
Why should a nonviolent felon (ie embezzler, fish and game violator, tax evader) AUTOMATICALLY lose the RKBA? Should they also lose the right to free speech and worship? Should they be required to house soldiers? No.
Now, knowing damn well that anyone who really wants to get a gun and use it improperly can and will do so despite every law on the books, what jpurpose does the law do except make it tough on those who intend to follow the law and live peaceably? The law only restricts those who live by it, not those who intend to violate it.
I agree completely. There are plenty of real life cases like this hypothetical one that you have mentioned.
"However that does not extend to general rules that deny entire classes of people a basic right."
An entire class of bottom layer people that made the decision to live outside of the Law.
"The idea of denying rights to classes of people is a fairly recent development and, unfortuantely, embraced by those who value the mirage of security over their freedom and the freedoms of others."
I repeat my previous statement. I personally do not want my gun ownership associated with these individuals. I am a Law abiding citizen. They are not.
"If you hadn't noticed, more and more RKBA advocates are finding their voices and losing their fear of what our opponents might think or say."
I have noticed, and I'm glad to see it. Why does this mean that we should jeopardize the gains that we have made by associating ourselves (as gun owners) with a lawless class of individuals that will make us all look lawless? Why give our opponents more ammunition by welcoming the criminal element in to our camp, thereby making our statistics worse? Why give the gun control crowd that edge?
"Why should a nonviolent felon (ie embezzler, fish and game violator, tax evader) AUTOMATICALLY lose the RKBA? Should they also lose the right to free speech and worship? Should they be required to house soldiers? No."
As I have said before- nonviolent felons have a greater tendency to become violent felons. There aren't a lot of people that will hire an ex-con- violent or non-violent. In many cases the ex-con will return to a life of crime, because they don't have any other option. As a hunter, I don't want to be associated with poachers either. I play by the rules, and I shouldn't be penalized by association with people who don't abide by the Law.
Show me an example of someone being killed by another person who was speaking freely. Show me an example of someone that was killed by another person that was worshipping. Don't all Americans have the Right to LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If your violent or non-violent felon has a gun and misuses it, then hasn't that individual violated another person's Rights? Like I said before there should be consequences for committing crime. With freedom goes responsibility.