Under What Circumstnce Would You Support Revoking A person's RKBA?

[Treo]

On another gun board I'm known as the local ? I?m a felon, (for the record I?m not a felon) please give me a gun? advocate. I decided to throw out this question over there; ?What circumstances do you think warrant a permanent revocation of a person?s RKBA?? After giving it some thought I decided it would be a good topic here too

I personally think the ?No guns for felons? (yeah, how?s that workin? out for ya?) is ridiculous given the growing number of things that are listed as felonies. I see all kinds of room for government abuse here (Lautenburg anyone) and I don?t agree W/ it. The only circumstances I would be willing to permanently revoke a persons RKBA under would be if the person was found guilty of a capital crime, in which case his/her RKBA would be moot anyway.
I shouldn?t have to say this but if I don?t someone will say that I advocate giving prisoners guns. While you?re incarcerated or on parole. Other than that, if we trust you in society then we trust you W/ a gun.

If we don?t trust you W/ a gun then why to we trust you W/ an
Axe
Baseball Bat
Car
Hammer
Candle
Plastic bag
Rat Poison
Etc.
Etc
Etc?
Thoughts

[Neverfox]

As a libertarian, I believe there are no circumstances under which the right to own legitimate property (whatever that property is intended to do) should be limited if that property isn't a direct and intentional means to initiate force against another without their consent. My view on punishment and restitution is that of Dr. Roderick Long found here.

[T]he argument that justifies defensive coercion does not justify retaliatory coercion. If I use more coercion against you than is necessary to end your aggression against me, then in effect I am going beyond merely exercising my legitimate authority within my own sphere. If each person's freedom may be justly limited only by the equal freedom of others, what could justify me in limiting your freedom by more than is necessary to restore my own?
(...)
[C]oercion as the forcible subjection, actual or threatened of the person or property of another without that other's consent. If I come running toward you brandishing a sword, you need not wait until I actually cut you before taking defensive measures. By manifesting a murderous intent toward you, I have already placed myself under your authority. Hence it is permissible to imprison or exile criminals, to the extent that they pose a continuing danger to the innocent.
(...)
Coercion, to be legitimate, must pass three tests:  first, it must be a response to aggression on the part of someone else;  second, it must be necessary in order to end or prevent that aggression; and third, it must be proportionate to the seriousness of the aggression.

Let me guard against a possible misinterpretation of this principle.  It might seem that if the defensive response must be proportionate to the threat, then we can never be justified in using greater force than our aggressor (e.g., killing someone to prevent them from inflicting serious but not fatal harm on us).  I think that would be a mistaken inference.  An aggressive killing is worse than a defensive killing.  Hence aggression need not be fatal in order for deadly force to be a proportionate defensive response to it.

Therefore, the only legitimate way to limit the RKBA is in the situation where the person is a continuing threat to "the person and property of another without that other's consent".

[Treo]

Therefore, the only legitimate way to limit the RKBA is in the situation where the person is a continuing threat to "the person and property of another without that other's consent

IMO that would imply that the person isn't fit to be allowed out in society anyway

[Neverfox]

IMO that would imply that the person isn't fit to be allowed out in society anyway

Yes, making the issue of gun ownership moot and circumstantial.

[armoredman]

Maybe I should state that I have worked in corrections now for almost 8 years, currently a Correctional Sergeant in my home state of AZ, and I have worked on Death Row, sex offender yards, general population yards, and max custody lockdown. I have seen inmates who I would not trust with a staple, (straightened staple, rolled up tube of paper, a bit of mattress fluff, a piece of tape, and some concrete to sharpen the staple on, and you have a blowgun. They dip the needle sharp end into a cocktail of urine, feces, semen, blood, and spit, and hope to hit exposed skin.), and I have also known inmates I would have absolutely no issue of them being behind me with a loaded gun. Admittedly THAT number is VERY small, (2), but they are out there.
I do not believe in life sentances, as they serve no purpose but to allow the individual time to plan to escape. I have known inmates who escaped on life sentances, and killed again. If a crime is so heinous to require them to be removed from society for life, then end it, as prison is either punishment, or rehabilitation, and life sentances allow for niether. You do not punish without the purpose of correcting the persons behavior, or it is torture, either physical or mental. If there is no hope of correcting thier behavior or rehabilitating them a life sentance merely gives them time to escape, and costs the taxpayers large amounts of money, running about $21k a year average to house 1 inmate.
Longest sentance should be 25 years, in my humble opinion, then let them out. As for firearms in thier hands, I did an informal survey, and every inmate I talked to said they could have a gun in thier hand the day they were released, before they were out of view of Traffic Control. I don't doubt them one bit. As it is, our prisons are pretty tame. The Mexican National inmates we get, (over 6000 right now), LOVE it here, vacation time with three hots and a cot, medical, dental, freeclothes, etc.