[Sudetenland]

At first I didn't find his arguments compelling, but in after thought, the terming "usual conveyance of the time" is a legitimate and compelling argument...unfortunately an argument I have used in defending the unrestricted ownership by law-abiding citizens of "contemporary" military type firearms. I say unfortunately because I hate to be caught in inconsistency, just as I hate to apologize and admit my errors.

That being said, how does one reconcile the concept of driving being a "right" when that right is so tightly constrained by the state? Yes there are limits to our rights as illustrated by the trite but true limitation on freedom of speech and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but the constraints placed on driving far exceed those placed on any other right I can think of.

[Sudetenland]

According to dictionary.com (admittedly hardly an authoritative source)

"Privilege usually suggests a right not enjoyed by everyone."

Given that definition, virtually all of our rights could be considered privileges.

I do not have time right now to read it fully, but I just came across this examination in the Harvard Law Review on the question...for any who remain interested.The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law

[elkfersupper]

how does one reconcile the concept of driving being a "right" when that right is so tightly constrained by the state?

We have been lazy in defending our rights.