PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.
First, where did I mention anything about rights after his release? I stated we add 10 years to his sentence as punishment for his crime. Did you just add that to my post or did you read that in what I wrote?
Since YOU brought up the topic of after the release of a felon let's look at that. You state that once he does his time he is eligible for every right we all have because if he shouldn't be allowed them then he should just rot in jail.
Well, part of his punishment, and he knows this up front, is he loses his right to own firearms and he loses his right to vote. That is also part of his sentence. If he is going to do the crime, he is going to do the time and suffer all the consequences that goes with him robbing the gas station, assaulting someone for their cash or doing a car jacking.
Many here feel non-violent felons deserve a different "sentence". I'll disagree. If it's serious enough to be considered a felony by law and he knows this when he does his crime then he accepts the consequences.
Some say almost half of the people serving felonies are for non-violent or "victimless" crimes. Possession of pot has been mentioned. Possession of controlled substances. White collar crimes. Stupid mistakes by stupid kids, etc. Well, from what I've seen, first offenses are usually bargained down to less than felony convictions. Repeat offenders know the consequences and decide to commit their crime anyways.
What about non-violent criminals who steal identities and empty a bank account. No gun was used, no violence, no one really got hurt if they had insurance, etc. Do these guys deserve to get back their freedoms back after serving their sentence? They did non-violent crimes, right?
How about the guys who prey on the older, retired people and sell them air for their life savings. No big deal, it was just a scam. No one got hurt, shot, stabbed or beaten. How about guys like Madoff? He didn't do anyting violent. All he did was steal millions and millions of dollars from people like you and me. No one was physically hurt, right?
Robbery. I rob you and show you a gun in my belt. Non-violent but a threat of violence.
Burglary. I come in when you are away and steal your belongings including your guns.
I did not carry any weapon of any type. Non-violent. You weren't even home. I'm a nice guy! I don't want to hurt anybody. I steal, I don't hurt people.
These guys deserve to get out of prison and get their rights back?
Nope, they deserve what they earned. They deserve to never be able to own a firearm because they committed what the law says are felonies and once you are convicted of a felony you cannot have the rights the law says you will lose if you do the crime.
Criminals know up front that they can lose their rights if they commit the act they are planning. It is full disclosure. When they show you the gun in their belt they are choosing to give up the right to carry a weapon. Period. It's their choice. It's their life. They chose to lose their rights. No one took them from them.
So, even though my earlier post did not suggest anything your reply did, this post now does. You can agree or disagree but the law is on my side in this one. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. You do the crime, you do the time AND you lose your rights, 2nd amendment or not. The 2nd amendment didn't give us the right to use our firearms to rob others of their property.