Driving a car is not a right, it is a specifically regulated "commercial" activity by law, which is why it requires registration and testing. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right, which means it is an inherent natural law that the government doesn't grant, nor is it able to take it away. Furthermore testing is just more Fabian style regulation opening the door for further manipulation and denial of these unalienable rights.
Registering firearms (which BTW already happens to a large extent with retailers required to keep records and the ATF able to index those at any time), simply creates an easy to use national database of law abiding citizens for any incoming dictatorship to disarm.
Supposedly Trump is a huge Nazi, but you want his government to be the only ones with control over guns right?
/s The logic is strong /s
People have the natural right to move/travel, just as they have a natural right to self-defense. Gun rights are natural rights by extention. Logically, if guns are guaranteed as a right because they facilitate self-defense, it follows that cars are a natural right because they facilitate motion/travel.
Also, however, the U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee gun-ownership as a natural right. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms is guaranteed because a "well-regulated militia" is needed to safeguard the State. Also, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an absolute right and that licensing and testing requirements would be constitutionally acceptable.
Except traveling IS a right. "DRIVING" however is a commercial act which involves interstate commerce which puts it under the firm jurisdiction of Federal law which impose the driver's license requirements on the states. You have the right to travel, not to drive. So no your example does not follow because it is attempting to compare two dissimilar cases.
"The right to bear arms" is pretty clear. Your statement about militias is completely nonsensical, you didn't even bother explaining what you think that means or why you think it supports your argument. Furthermore the right to bear arms is unalienable, which means the supreme court nor the government granted the right, nor can they take it away.