We already have a fairly robust* process for deciding that someone's fundamental day-to-day freedom should be taken away -- i.e., for deciding to put them in prison. Is there any inherent reason we couldn't have a similar process for gun ownership?

*Not flawless, of course, but what is?

If you're talking about the U.S. prison-industrial system, you answered your own question.

More people are imprisoned in the United States than were in the Soviet gulags or Nazi Germany.

More black people are in the prison/parole system than were enslaved before the passage of the 13th Amendment.

How is taking away guns different from sending someone to prison or executing them? The legal system and due process is already what protects people from the government.

Temporary detainment for example is perfectly legal for a wide range of things, as long as an appeals process exists it’s not seen as a major issue.

It's different because bearing of arms is protected by the Constitution. Imprisonment and capital punishment are not, as long as !(cruel && unusual).

Why is the bearing of arms protected? Because the founders sought distributed defense instead of centralized authoritarianism.