Funny enough, you've accidentally made the moderate pro-gun argument.

We only allow people to drive a car on public land after they get a license.

They can own a car and use it on private land as much as they want without a license.

That's how most gun owners agree it should be for guns. If you want to own and shoot your gun on private land, more power to you. If you want to carry a gun on public land, you get the appropriate license (hunting or carry permit). Same as with cars.

Hmmmm, you're right and I have been completely overlooking that aspect, can't argue with that.

   I have nowt against people owning a gun in America, more case of making sure they and others are safe when they use it and with that, protecting  their lives.  Which I'm sure is part of the constitution and if not, then it sure does add something needed perhaps.   After all it can have amendments, just need to see the prohibition of alcohol to see how that can work.

So thank you for destroying my analogy, I learned something there and that I appreciate. After all a good point has no flaws.

Because the constitution.

The American constitution is not a single source of truth. The same goes for arguing that morality is based on the law.

The men who wrote the bill of rights were not infallible.

Sure, it's entirely possible to argue that from a technical or legal standpoint, it wouldn't be possible to require a firearms handling test.

But as far as principle goes, I don't think that the constitution is a valid reasoning.

Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets.

Because that is how that particular constitution is worded.

So still doable, and would not impact the gun fans about owning guns, many of which would of already done lessons.

Just protects people from those, accidents with guns, as we do with cars by insisting they own pass a test.

> Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets.

Courts are built on the shoulders of reasonable individuals (judges).

The law, especially as it relates to something as complicated as the Constitution, isn't a computer system with blind "gotchas" and logical loopholes.

There is no reasonable person that would, after jurisprudence established in Heller and McDonald, argue that firearms and their ammunition are exclusive of one another for purposes of legislation (and rights infringement).