I don't think you anti-gun or anti-civil rights based on your views. Using your own analogy, that would make me anti-autoloader because I prefer revolvers.
But for the sake of clarifying my statements so that they are not misunderstood, I must persist. Let it be known that you and I are not more or less than the other pro or anti anything, but perhaps are perceiving the concept of criminal justice differently.
Problem is plenty of folks get out of jail that are "less of a threat" and basically are let go because the system has a full jail. Just the way it is. So the big fantasy of if they cant be trusted with a gun then they shouldnt be let out of jail doesnt work.
That the local, state, and federal governments have neglected their duties in facilitating an increased demand in the prison system does not negate an individual's liberty -- that is, their debt to society repaid in whole or part, their liberty has been restored to them.
When I referred to society deeming them appropriate to be free, I was referring to the system of parole -- that is, folks who have been interred for a long period of time but are released early for one reason or another.
And I totally agree with you, but perhaps in not the way that you intend. I don't see prisons as a means of reforming criminal behavior -- mostly for want of empirical evidence. It is a system of crime and punishment, of which citizens who have offended society and violated the liberties of other citizens through their own conscious and willful action are punished with the intent that they should not err again.
When that punishment is fulfilled and their liberty restored, they should have every liberty restored as they are no longer any different from any other citizen.
Naturally, we are talking about convicted, violent felons who are no longer incarcerated. These are rapists, murderers, batterers, the whole gamut of society's worst examples. Many of them serve very long sentences. These are not the individuals (God keep this statement true) that have their punishments reduced due to overcrowding. These are the individuals who go through lengthy appeals and parole meetings in order to lessen or negate their punishments.
After their debt to society is repaid, they are returned to liberty, just like the shop lifter or marijuana connoisseur or prostitute who only served a minor sentence.
If the former-prisoner is not safe to own a firearm, then he is not safe to own a knife, or a hammer, or a piano, or money in order to illegally obtain a firearm, or a knife, or a hammer, and so forth.
As unfortunate as it may be, his punishment has been administered, he is a free man. If he is a dangerous killer and his debt to society unpayable as marked by a calender within a penitentiary, then his remaining there is irrational and should therefore pay with an asset that would satisfy his debt.
But we must be pragmatic with these things, and therefore do I not intend any intense argument to erupt from this disagreement. Truly, it is a philosophical difference between you and I and nigh everyone on this forum and elsewhere as to what exactly are our "rights" and what exactly is the purpose of the prison system.
It has nothing to do with someone being "anti" gun, but instead a deeply and equally valid view of liberty and the criminal justice system.
A pragmatic solution may be, perhaps, that instead of irrevocably denying a former violent felon the right to keep and bear arms for the remainder of his life (however long that life may last defenseless against the retributions of his former society and his current, likely rough, society that he is demoted to due to his nasty criminal record and social stigma) perhaps it would be more constructive to place former prisoners on probation (prohibiting them of many vices that may be conducive to further transgressions against their fellow citizens) for a certain period of time until he has proven that his liberties are no longer conflicting with those of his fellow citizens.
I am certainly open to new ideas as to how to protect our citizenry from the depravity of others. I am not, however, very keen of systems that limit rights without exemplary cause and evidence. But as I said before, we must operate conservatively and with much pragmatism or we will only know consecutive failures at any extreme.