The problem with the logic in your proposal is that you are treating a right the same as a privilege.
Under our Constitution, a right is something not bestowed by government but by our Creator. A right is something every man has and shares, regardless of any form of government.
A privilege is a power created and bestowed by the government. Since you use roads provided by the government, driving is a privilege the government grants to you allowing you to use those roads. And in granting you the privilege, the government may set qualifications you must meet regarding the exercise of your privilege.
With a right, since the government is not the authority bestowing the right, they have little to no power to regulate a right.
Note that there are provisions within the Bill of Rights, that grant some latitude to the government in the area of rights. But those provisions apply only to the right specified. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting "unreasonable" searches and seizures. With regard to the Second amendment, there is not only no "reasonableness" language pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms, the language "shall not be infringed" is there to impose serious limitations on any government interference.
The "blurring" of the distinction between rights and privileges is a tactic employed by the gun control crowd. It makes their goal that much easier when they do not have to face the fact that they can do little with a right.
What people need to understand and take to heart is this: as goes the Second Amendment, so goes the Bill of Rights. Any limitation or qualification of the Second Amendment can (and will in the future) be used concerning all other rights.
The current "debate" on gun control is not about guns but about control. And the overwhelming media coverage and push has planted more than a few seeds that guns are the cause. Remember, it is the Bill of Rights we are discussing, not the Bill of Needs.
And for those tempted to move into the "ban assault weapons" camp because their interests in firearms is not in assault weapons, I am reminded of this:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
The approach being used is the incremental reduction and elimination of the Second Amendment. Take a little at a time so people don't notice. Boil the frog slowly.
Finally, any discussion on qualifications for owning a gun begins with the presumption that people are not responsible for their own actions and the government must step in. It is typical "nanny state" thinking, presuming that the government better than the individual knows what is right for him or her. Having been a "cold warrior" for over 20 years, I recognize that philsophy right away - it is called communism.
