LOL! This is the excuse used for half of the leftists' subversions of the notion that the Constitution means what it says rather than what the leftists think it ought to say.
First Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to crack down on "hate speech" and "campaign finance abuses".
Second Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to get "Saturday Night Specials"* and "Assault Weapons"** off the streets.
*Definition: Any firearm less than twelve inches in length.And it's nearly impossible to trace back.
**Definition: Any firearm spanning one foot or more.
Actually, in general it's quite trivial to trace back. The only obstacle is that the industry doesn't want to take the PR hit of targeting the individual violators.
And stuff your "duh" where the sun don't shine, you haven't presented a solution.
I haven't presented a solution that you like. That's too bad. There's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US
Do I really have to explain the fallacy of using one unjustifiable policy to justify another unjustifiable policy?
you really don't need to do that any faster
That's the excuse used for the other half of the aforementioned leftist subversions (e.g. "Rich people don't really need all that money").
And since you're insult was based on a deliberate misstatement of my position yes indeed it is slander.
There is no misstatement. You and Sarah agree that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning items because they might misuse them.
On the other side you can just follow a simple rule: never say anything on line that would get you popped in the face in person.
I've observed that people who prefer to blame inanimate objects tend to have poor impulse control. It's a convenient way of shifting blame, I suppose.