There were different expectations then, and different ways of dealing with the lawless, and you're right - no such action as barring gun ownership would probably have been taken - the perp probably would not have either been free to recommit, or able to.
If I were king I would no more allow a convicted violent firearm offender legal access to a gun as allow a convicted pedophile/child abuser operate a day care center.
I wonder what opinion the founders would have of that?
My guess is, such an offender wouldn't be around to ask the question.
So you believe that the changed situation necessitates changing the Constitution by interpretation to fit the changed times? That way lies rendering the Constitution meaningless altogether and is how we got where we are now. It doesn’t matter who carries a gun. The law does not affect whether a felon carries a gun. It only punishes him unConstitutionally if he is caught with a gun and does not deter. If the felon uses the gun feloniously that is the crime and is punishable under the Constitution. It is like adding Hate to a crime. What does that accomplish beyond making people feel good? Does it deter hatred? NO. Stripping a felon of his RKBA is merely piling on. You don’t like the guy so he shouldn’t be allowed to carry or to engage in self defense. If his attacker kills him because he doesn’t have a gun well that’s his just deserts, right? You don’t like the RKBA? then work to get it Amended out of existence or to add whatever exceptions you prefer.