Everyone has a right to drive, that right is bounded by where it effects other people's rights. The blind can drive on their own land where they won't pose a danger to anyone else. However, they are restricted from driving on the public roads where they pose a danger to others. Kids can drive on private land as well. (once upon a time they could drive on the public roads, my grandfather did)
We have the right to own firearms. We cannot shoot firearms in crowded public spaces. Convicted felons are restricted from owning firearms. The right to have them still exists. One's rights simply end where the rights of others begin. If we can successfully regulate the use of firearms and retain the right, then the same can be done with driving.
There is no need for something to be a privledge where the government can make you give up anything it wants for you to have it. With this mentality, the government could demand you have a tracking chip implanted in order to drive. Who knows what else. There's no limit, when you call it a privledge. The simple fact that one's rights end where other's rights begin is enough for the necesscary regulation, rules, etc in public places and prevents the end run around our protections. Imagine when owning a firearm becomes a privledge instead of a right. Will we have any rights?
Why the baseless character attacks? A DUI conviction can cause a loss of driving as much as a liquidate conviction can result in the loss of owning firearms. It's called due process. As a privilege, I wonder if even due process is required.
