They are absolutely not the same. The constitution grants you rights based on being, not based on a test and licensing system. Those are rights.

There is no right in the constitution to drive on the roadway - it is a privilege granted based on passing the tests, maintaining a reasonable driving record, and keeping insurance current. If you fall short in any of those categories, the privilege can be suspended. You will no longer be given a license to drive a car.

I can possess firearms with no license due the the right. I cannot drive a car with no license, as that is a privilege.

 

Mandatory helmet law & no lane splitting .

 

no lane splitting and mandatory helmet law

 

This reminds me of the movie "Would you rather".

It's about an evil guy who kidnaps people and forces them to do one of two evil things.

 

You can possess that car without a license. You can't drive that car on a public highway without a license.

You can posses that firearm without a license. You cannot bear that firearm in public without passing a class and getting a permit (license) even though the second amendment says you have that right.

While driving you have rights that are enumerated in the constitution under the fourth and fifth amendments. IE. you cannot be randomly stopped and given breathalyzer, have your car searched, or just to check the status of your license. You have a right to travel freely. Many tickets and DUI cases are dismissed because of the reason (or lack thereof) for the vehicle stop.

There is a lot of argument on this subject and I believe my analogy is valid. Driving may be a privilege but a drivers license is a property right that can only be taken away after due process. Keep in mind that administrative due process does not require the same burden of proof that criminal due process does. That's why even though a DUI charge may be dropped by the prosecutor, the DMV can still hold their own hearing and suspend your license based on the same act. You still get a hearing and you have a right to appeal that decision to superior court.

 

"You can posses that firearm without a license. You cannot bear that firearm in public without passing a class and getting a permit (license) even though the second amendment says you have that right."

This is different in each state.

 

Only because each state chooses to restrict these rights differently. The US Supreme Court has determined that the these restrictions are still Constitutional in the states that incorporate them.

 

Would you rather hit your hand with a hammer or your head with a frying pan? Stupid poll. Must be winter.

 

Exactly. Do those arguing that driving is a right actually believe it's true, or just that you really, really want it to be?

You understand that arguing driving and gun rights are the same would lead to the conclusion that you don't have the right to bear arms, correct? That arguing about how gun restrictions, which are restricting your constitutional right to bear arms, are fundamentally different from restrictions associated with the granting of a privilege?

It's obvious from the responses to my posts that many folks really do not understand the difference.