Let's return to your actual absurdity:
prohibiting possession of anything based on what someone MIGHT do with it is prior restraint, which is outlawed
Your point isn't in the text of the Constitution, isn't in the Federalist Papers, doesn't exist in statute, and has no historical or legal source in support. It's utterly and completely false, without any merit whatsoever.
You've never produced anything supporting it, you never will.
In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court [cited below] stated:
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777