I have no problem with a former felon owning, even using, a firearm. Where I have a problem is when they use it offensively, that is, when they use it while initiating force. Then again, I have a problem with that whether the person doing it is a former felon or not. If they're initiating force, I think that's a problem. I take no issue with a like response to that force. To answer in terms of the asked question, if a person is attacked, why should he or she be forced to be a disarmed victim of that attack? Why should the law make him/her vulnerable? If that person is a former felon, this applies even more so, as he or she is likely to have people he or she knows that would attempt to either visit violence upon him/her or attempt to return him/her to the criminal ways of his/her past.
Should said person use the gun to commit more crimes, when caught, I think that that person has proven him/herself untrustworthy. Earning trust in the first place is a difficult process. Earning it back is more difficult, of necessity. Earning it back *again* should, again of necessity, be exceptionally so, almost to the point of impossibility. Such a person should be removed from society, whether by incarceration or execution.
Blessings,
Bill
Should said person use the gun to commit more crimes, when caught, I think that that person has proven him/herself untrustworthy. Earning trust in the first place is a difficult process. Earning it back is more difficult, of necessity. Earning it back *again* should, again of necessity, be exceptionally so, almost to the point of impossibility. Such a person should be removed from society, whether by incarceration or execution.
Blessings,
Bill