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).