There is some problems with the common statement that "driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right"

First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled

Secondly, the common justification that it is a privilege and not a right is the fact you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege", neither of which would be the case if were a "right"

But it is now "settled law" as you call it that the 2nd amendment is an indivual right, but in order to bear arms in many many states you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege????"... so if logic on why driving is not a right holds then logically all licensing and regulation around gun ownership and carrying are de-facto unconstitutional

However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered.

Driving is a right because we have the right to travel, and government can only under very limited circumstances limit that right to travel.

> First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled

Sure. I naturally await the day that any of our 50 beautiful states, much less the federal government, decides that driving is a fundamental right!

Insofar as law can be settled, the absence of a right to drive is settled.

> However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered.

This is affirming the consequent: the fact we put reasonable limits on a government-recognized right and a non-right does not imply that the non-right is somehow a right. The government puts limits on hunting on federal lands; that does not imply a right to hunt (either on those lands or at all).

You have a right to free movement. The government is not required to respect any particular instantiation of your movement as a pure right in itself. Put another way: you right to travel does not give you a free pass to fly a plane without licensing and safety training.

If you have the right to free movement but the government requires someone licensed to operate for the vast majority of ways of efficient free movement, that's just infringing on the right to free movement in a clever and devious way while saying "well you could walk!"

It kind of reminds me of the states where you need a license/permit to acquire a gun, "but you could acquire an antique muzzleloader without one" so the mental gymnastics justify it as not an infringement.

Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights.

I haven't presumed that they do.

Governments can indeed infringe upon rights, and they can also infringe upon plenty of things that are not rights. Like driving.

Then you understand your argument that your opinion coincides with settled law lends no credence one way or another to your argument. We have a simple difference of opinion, and the fact that government infringes on the ability to drive is not evidence that driving isn't a right is fact.

Sure it does. The US government has correctly and as a matter of settled law determined that driving is not a right. Their decision to infringe on this non-right, if it can even be called infringement, is entirely a regulatory concern.