A parent may prevent activities due to potential harm to children. Shadow you are treating free adults as children. A civil right to keep and bears arms does have potential for harm or good. However America is set up under the understanding that the citizens are not children and will rule themselves and accept the risks inherent with that, therefore any arguement of potential harm violates the freedom of an adult.
That is prior restraint. If an adult misuses a a tool like a car, nailgun or gun then they can be presecuted for the misuse not the mere posession or use if done responsibly.
So the analogy is false. People can misuse a car and often do and are subject to penalties. Driving is not a right just a priviledge. Posession of arms is a right not a priviledge and subject to a much higher standard to restrict any use or carry under the constitution.
So Heller said that regulation can be restricted from felons and minors, not the adult lawabiding citizen. Felons have many rights removed and that has been held constitutional.
The tool has no ability to act on its own but needs a human to wield it. So until a person misuses the toool they have every right to carry and own it and use it correctly.
No prior restraint based on what a person may do.
Your theory of people control is worse than a police state based on what potential harm can be done. There is potential harm from any action.
