The guy was willing to walk into a man's home and put a gun to his head.

The point isn't that the crime he committed, for which he was sentenced to 20 years, wasn't heinous; the point is that "convicted felon" is not legal short-hand for "historically violent offender". In this particular case, he had previously be convicted of "felony perjury". You can also be convicted, for instance, of "felony vandalism".

Whether or not I agree with the argument, it's not like totally crazy to argue that someone should be sentenced to death for murder or attempted murder, and also not like super crazy to argue that if you're considering the death penalty then a history of violent behavior might be relevant. It is totally bonkers-town to say that because someone committed, say, felony vandalism (having caused $550 of property damage with their graffiti) as opposed to misdemeanor vandalism (having only caused $450 of damage), that should be the deciding factor in whether or not to later put them to death for another crime.

Convicted felon just doesn't mean what people think it does.

The very fact that this person was willing to commit a crime makes your argument irrelevant. No one has stated this person should get a death penalty for vandalism.

No one. And poo on you for trying to argue such.

I suppose we should wait until this individual attempts to kill atleast 4 people before they qualify for the death penalty? 10? 2? 100? How many does it take before they're considered violent and dangerous?

The great-great-great grandparent post was "This guy was a convicted felon. He already had one chance."

That is exactly what was being argued.

What was being argued is that he should potentially get the death penalty.