Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. As such, the government has the burden of proving that the policy being challenged is constitutional. More specifically, the court must determine the policy passes three "tests"
1. The policy achieves compelling government interests. The interests must be deemed "critical" rather than preferred, traditionally relating to national security.
2. The policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve said interest. Thus, if the policy must not be overly broad or vague.
3. The policy must be the least restrictive means to achieving the interest. Thus, if there is a less intrusive means, the policy is not valid.
As I mentioned, SCOTUS has demonstrated any policies or regulation on the the right to keep and bear arms is subject to strict scrutiny. So if the "rapid liberals" deem policy such as "tak[ing] a written test to get a gun permit" is permissible under strict scrutiny, inherently they would agree that "a written test demonstrating they know about STD transmission and how to prevent it" is permissible.
If they disagree with the second amendment being subject to strict scrutiny, then they are in affect refuting the US Constitution and the fundamentals of strict scrutiny. And I wouldn't be surprised with this either. The soviet state of Maryland and California do this all the time with the second amendment.
I applaud your sound reasoning when conversing with those liberals. You are the one who should be offended, not them.