Sorry, was a away for a bit, but had to come back to reply to this.
Thank you for the reply Double Naught, now consider the following:
The Second Amendment is no different (or should be no different) than any other amendment. While imprisoned, an inmate is not protected against unreasonable search and seizure, nor can inmates elect to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, their inalienable rights to liberty are also suspended (and this is important if you understand what inalienable means, look it up). The very act of imprisonment is a forfeiture of liberty, and also many other rights.
However, every single right that is forfeited during imprisonment as part of that action, is immediately restored once the prison term is served to satisfaction…except the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote. However, voting rights are specifically mentioned in the document and the stipulation is clearly defined in that case that you will lose voting rights. No such admission is made about the RKBA. And that is wrong. It is going against the very nature of the Constitution, and for someone on a site such as this, someone that should be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms to declare it is okay to deny and infringe upon a right that by the very wording of the amendment cannot be infringed unsettles my bile.
Ask yourself this, in the 1700's, was the right to keep and bear arms restored to an individual after they were released from prison?
Did private civilians legally possess military weapons and vessels (cannons and war ships)?
Was there any mechanism to permanently revoke a right from a free individual (i.e. not imprisoned or in custody)?
Why is it different now?
You make a bold and incredulous leap with the statement that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as you have not committed a capital or otherwise infamous crime and been found guilty after due process" because those words do not appear in the Constitution either. Now do they?
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
And this quote, particularly what is in bold letters, proves a very important point. Those words do state that the right to vote can be infringed
if a person is guilty of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". That clause is very specific, yet we do not see that clause on any other amendment, do we? Where is that clause on the Second Amendment? I am sorry, again I fail to see it. There is no clause in the Constitution or the amendments that states that the right to keep and bear arms can be permanently revoked for being a felon. In any case where a certain right can be revoked or forfeited, a specific clause is included or further enumerated somewhere in the document (see the right to vote). You are interpreting the document instead of reading it, and you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of forming a valid opinion. I am not for felons getting firearms per se, but I am for following the document's decrees and treating each right the same.