I have a problem with any law that prohibits possession of an item rather than the irresponsible or violent behavior if the individual. And if the feared behavior is already illegal then why restrict the item?
Honestly I think the idea (at least partial) behind prohibiting felons from owning/possessing guns is for the ability of LEO to arrest someone just for possessing it and hopefully prevent a crime in the future.
That is not too clear but hopefully this example will clear it up.
Lets say a "gang banger" who just got out of prison for beating up a rival gang member is back on the streets hanging out with the same old crowd he was before; obviously up to no good. But for what ever reason they get searched (flipped of the police, made threats, suspicious activity, etc) and long and behold they find a gun on him. Hey look they have a charge against him! Even though the guy did not commit a murder or armed robbery with the gun, it would be perceived that hanging out with the gang, it was only a matter of time before he did commit such a crime.
Personally I don't think giving felons their rights back is the right thing. Even if it is a non-violent charge. Sorry you make a mistake of sleeping with a 13 year old girl (who you thought was 18) and you should be able to own a gun and vote? Who is to say that you wont go back to the parents house and kill them for sending you to prison? Sorry no. I don't believe that. Some of you are saying that they should make the penalties harder. Well wouldn't taking away our basic rights because we committed a felony constitute as harsher punishment? By harsher punishment you mean that you want them in jail longer... on tax payer dollars, in over crowded facilities, where inmate rights groups pusher for easier time in prison (tvs, radios, trailers for them and their wives/girlfriend for "fun" time). You know the consequences of your actions and should think about them before you commit a crime.
For example. My father is in prison on charges that I think are excessive for what he is guilty of (he admitted what he was really guilty of to me). The jury decided he was guilty of the actual act but in reality he was only guilty for not reporting the crime to the police. Either way I still see him as a felon and I've told him to his face that he's getting what he deserves and that he should still be restricted with his rights when he gets out.
And a side note, my father teaches law classes to other inmates and helps with appeals. He is a very intelligent man who I think would still be helpful to society, but he should not be able to retain some of his rights when he gets out (he'll be in his 70s by then).