"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"
Failing to understand how natural rights work, or failing to understand how criminals create criminal RULES (not natural laws) to be enforced by guilty criminals on innocent victims, is never going to change how natural rights still work, so long as nature enforces natural laws.
At the time when people recognized natural laws there was an idea called voluntary, agreeable, law, where people agreed to volunteer to recognized natural law, and if someone stepped outside of that voluntary agreement then those people volunteered to be criminals, by their actions, and if they refused an offer to return, to remedy, to trial by jury, or to any process by which restitution, remedy, regaining voluntary association with other volunteers, then said individual was considered outside the law, or an outlaw, and was therefore no longer volunteering to be defended by other people, so other people were not obligated (by other people) to defend the outlaw.
That may not be easy to understand, but it is the way it was, at least according to some information, such as the information assembled by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury. An outlaw was considered to be as people might consider a mad dog, or a wild man eating animal, or as a criminally insane, sociopathic, psychopath, and anyone who may kill or HOLD/CAPTURE/DETAIN said mad dog, or natural catastrophe, was not considered guilty of any crime, such as murder in cases where the outlaw was killed by someone agreeing to recognized natural laws, and not guilty of kidnapping (holding someone against their will) the insane, wild, animal, since someone inside the law cannot "kidnap" a natural catastrophe no more than someone inside the law can kidnap a wild, man eating, animal.
If a jury EVER decided to put someone in a prison of some kind, there would have to be a prison to put someone in. A cage, for outlaws, for wild animals, for the insane, for sociopaths, for psychopaths, or any other natural threat to innocent victims costs a lot of loot to maintain; so why build one? That only happens when the criminals take over government, and the criminals never run out of competitors who try to take over their TURF, and so when the criminals take over their first order of business is to cage all the competitors, and they (the criminals) set about doing what criminals always do, which is to inflict cruel and unusual (unnatural) punishment on those who threaten to compete (replace) their form of criminal take over of government.
Back to the question:
"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"
In a land where the criminals took over at least as far back as 1787, those criminals who took over government (defensive, and according to natural laws agreed upon by volunteers) robbed the idea of banking, they are the bank robbers, they did so with The First Bank of the United States, which was a fraudulent extortion pyramid scheme, a method of counterfeiting the idea of money, along side their counterfeit version of defensive government. Convicting those bank robbers is not possible when the victims still believe the lie that the bank robbers themselves are our one and only source of defense against harm done by criminals who are always ready to volunteer to be criminals if you let them.
Back to the question:
"A convicted bank robber, sitting in a cell in prison, has the right to a gun?"
Next is a free lesson from someone who is an authority on this type of TOPIC. The author of the following words is Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn. Pay attention, this is a free lesson to other people, but the author learned this lesson the hard way.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
