“Theoretically speaking, we require people to pass a driving test to get a driver’s license, which is supposed to show a minimum understanding of how to drive....”
The failing in your analogy is that no license is required to purchase a car. There are no age limits or restrictions on what type, max speed, or how many vehciles you can own. You don’t need to register them. No license is required to drive unless you are on a public road. Anyone with the money (or a loan) can buy any vehcile, even a commercial vehicle, even a felon on parole with multiple DUI fatalities.
Firearms and vehicles are completely different. Firearms are a fundamental right to all people. They aren’t just random pieces of property, they’re the assurance that you can unseat an unjust governement if needed.
See post 18.
And I’d disagree on your critique of the analogy, for it it is as you say, then the anti-gun left could then pass laws allowing everyone to buy a gun, but make it illegal to use a gun.
And that would pass your muster in the critique. I’d say that’d be just as constitutionally wrong as banning guns itself.