# Driving is Only a Privilege, but Bearing a Gun is a Right. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760 "2009-06-05T01:10:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/41 "2009-06-05T17:06:12Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Ahh they classic “they can fuck off and die”. Good to see your concern for other people. Do you an argument that isn’t sociopathic? No, what I don’t care about is your hypotheticals. People survived for eons without cars and continue to do so today. While I agree that the right of free travel is guaranteed, the mode in which one chooses to travel = not so much. So far, you’ve called me or my opinions retarded, fascist, short sighted, and sociopathic simply because we disagree. You must be a fucking riot at a party. > [@](#): > > Your assertion is anything beyond your feet is a privilege. If the argument is the state doesn’t have to pay for a car and gas that’s fine. I can get behind that. > > However saying that proves driving isn’t a right is saying free speech is privilege not a right, since the state won’t pay for you to be published. Do you assert people don’t have a right to free speech? No it doesn’t. The freedom of speech is a right. The ability to be published is not. It too, is a privilege. Cars, the internet, publishing houses, etc. are all vehicles in which we can apply those rights. Without them, our rights still exist and can be manipulated on their own without any external devices. The Second amendment clearly requires an object (arms) so that it can be applied similarly. The right to bear arms means nothing with out arms. The right to free speech does not need anything other than a person and an idea. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/42 "2009-06-05T17:14:12Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > No, what I don’t care about is your hypotheticals. People survived for eons without cars and continue to do so today. While I agree that the right of free travel is guaranteed, the mode in which one chooses to travel = not so much. So if I’m not allowed to drive a car on the road, I assume it’s alright if I take my horse? Many people do not live in walking distance of a grocery store. When people didn’t have cars, they either lived within walking or riding distance of the places they needed to get to, or they lived in the wilderness where they could be self-sufficient. Those things aren’t possible anymore for most people. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/43 "2009-06-05T17:32:17Z")
This assertion is undermined by the fact of millions of people living in this country right now who manage to live without driving. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/44 "2009-06-05T17:34:20Z")
> [@riker1384](#): > > So if I’m not allowed to drive a car on the road, I assume it’s alright if I take my horse? > > Many people do not live in walking distance of a grocery store. When people didn’t have cars, they either lived within walking or riding distance of the places they needed to get to, or they lived in the wilderness where they could be self-sufficient. Those things aren’t possible anymore for most people. It is up to your local powers that be if you can take a horse to the store. I don’t care either way. I bet however if you dig deep in your city code there may be a prohibition or two against equine mobility in city limits. I realize that life would be tough without a car, I drive to work every day. That certainly does not make it a right to have one though. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/45 "2009-06-05T17:35:24Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This assertion is undermined by the fact of millions of people living in this country right now who manage to live without driving. Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/46 "2009-06-05T17:37:58Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > Interesting that the example of a boat or horse would come up, because I’ve been thinking that our rights to freedom of movement are becoming greatly eroded. > > Whether it’s tolls or hassles with TSA, the response usually seems to be, “Well you don’t HAVE to drive on the interstate or fly on commercial airliners.” > > Well, what then? Drive from Maine to Florida via back roads? > > I realize our infrastructure funds need to come from somewhere, but this sort of thing is beginning to bother me. And it worries me a lot more than gun rights. Me too. I have real problems when it comes down to someone deciding for me, what I need or don’t need. It shows me that the person has no idea whatsoever, about the Constitution, the FF, or much of our history. The constitution and law tells us what specific things will be limited, controlled, or forbidden. The constitution also says what rights are guaranteed. There is also some verbage about other inalienable, inherent, not to be disparaged etc rights. We do not have to have EVERY thing in life specifically listed as “approved” before we can do it. Some times, we will “trade” a small bit of freedom for safety, efficiency, or security. We allow oursleves to go through the metal detectors and put our baggage through the X ray at airports. We are surrendering that “little bit of whatever it is” for safety reasons. We can still travel. we can find alternate ways, if it bothers us too much. However, whenever the argument turns to “you don’t need it”, or “if you have nothing to hide”, or “you can’t do that unless the law plainly says you can” or anything remotely like that, it says the person speaking has no idea in the world what the bill of rights means, what any of the constitution means, or what the freedom to live free from undue control and interference means. Hell, they don’t know anything at all about freedom. I guess anyone who feels OK with only having the freedoms or rights the government sees fit to allow, would feel peachy keen in a goold old police state. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/47 "2009-06-05T17:48:51Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > There’s no hard distinction between walking and driving with that rationalization. You’re basically saying leaving your house is a privilege. > . Since you replied to me, I’ll respond; no, I’m not basically saying that. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/48 "2009-06-05T17:50:56Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite. New york has public transport. Plus, there are lots of homeless people that presumably don’t have cars - “living” isn’t the same as “living well”. (Of course he could instead be referring to all the children under 15 years old…but I doubt it.) ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/49 "2009-06-05T18:00:28Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Do tell! How on earth could that possibly be? I think you had better provide a cite. [U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm). Quoting: “In 2000, 88% of the driving age population was licensed to drive a motor vehicle.” Using their figure of 190,625,023 licensed drivers, that means there were approximately 25,994,321 people in America who were of driving age who didn’t have a license. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/50 "2009-06-05T18:30:56Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > It is up to your local powers that be if you can take a horse to the store. I don’t care either way. I bet however if you dig deep in your city code there may be a prohibition or two against equine mobility in city limits. You’re right, I can’t ride a horse. I was replying to whoever said that people used to get around fine without cars. If the state completely surrounds my house with paved roads and then bans me from riding my horse on those roads, they either have to let me drive a car or they’re violating my rights to travel freely. The fact is that modern life is impossible in most of America if a person doesn’t live in a city or a college campus, does not have a car, does not have someone else who will drive them around, and isn’t wealthy enough to use taxis every day. It is argued above that submitting to a breathalyzer test was not a violation of a person’s rights because they “agree” to it in order to drive. That is not a real choice. Even if some people could get by without driving, they’d be relying on other drivers who have to submit to that. If nobody drove, our society would collapse. If you hold that anything a driver agrees to in order to get a license is a voluntary agreement and has nothing to do with their rights, they could just as easily require drivers to submit to random searches of the whole car, or anything else. Most people would “voluntarily” give their right to vote if they had to in order to keep driving. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/51 "2009-06-05T18:43:15Z")
Ah, this is where you’re wrong. The freedom from search and seizure _is_ a constitutional right, as is the right to vote. Constitutional jurisprudence does indeed address questions like this all the time. The law would never say hold that “anything a driver agrees to in order to get a license” is okay. The fact is there’s not even a rational basis for giving up your right to vote in exchange for a driver’s license, so there’s no way the government can require that. Search and seizure – The purpose of regulating driving is for ensuring public safety in the form of protecting us against bad and untrained _drivers_. There’s not much of a rational basis argument for allowing all searches of a trunk in order to ensure that. Even if you could come up with a rational basis, the Fourth Amendment would require strict scrutiny, I think, which means you’d have to have probable cause or a search warrant. On the other hand, requiring a breathalyzer is directly related to the purpose of regulating drivers and also situations in which a cop would ask you to take a breathalyzer would be likely to be a situation in which there is probable cause to believe you’d been drinking. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/52 "2009-06-05T18:52:50Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > [U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm). Quoting: “In 2000, 88% of the driving age population was licensed to drive a motor vehicle.” Using their figure of 190,625,023 licensed drivers, that means there were approximately 25,994,321 people in America who were of driving age who didn’t have a license. Some of those are probably people in the 16-20 age range who simply haven’t gotten a license yet. Actually, make that 16-22 and sometimes older. Most people don’t get a license on their 16th birthday. People who live on college campuses can live without a car. (According to a search on Wolfram Alhpa, about 13.5 million people are enrolled in US universities.) People who join the armed forces straight out of high school may not need a license for some time. People who live with parents after high school may have a learners permit for a while. New York City has a population of over 8 million. I’m sure a lot of people who grow up and live there may not get a license. I’m not sure how that statistic deals with illegal immigrants and criminals, but there are a lot of people who may drive but not be licensed. Don’t forget the old and infirm. Anyone else who doesn’t have a license probably lives with someone who does, or lives in an urban area where they can walk or take a bus where they need to go. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/53 "2009-06-05T19:20:06Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > There are plenty of people in this country who get by just fine without driving themselves. But there are a lot more people getting along just fine without a gun. I’m not really on board with the OP with regards to rights, but the reality-based point is that, in our modern society, being without the abilty to drive would be very burdensome for most people, whereas being without a gun is likely to be no problem at all. This thread also reminds me of the “marriage is not a right” angle that comes up in gay marriage debates. As though being in a romanitc relationship is not important compared to having a gun or going to church on Sunday. I don’t want to shoot and pray, I want to drive and fuck. How about you? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/54 "2009-06-05T19:43:21Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But there are a lot more people getting along just fine without a gun. > > I’m not really on board with the OP with regards to rights, but the reality-based point is that, in our modern society, being without the abilty to drive would be very burdensome for most people, whereas being without a gun is likely to be no problem at all. > > This thread also reminds me of the “marriage is not a right” angle that comes up in gay marriage debates. As though being in a romanitc relationship is not important compared to having a gun or going to church on Sunday. > > **I don’t want to shoot and pray, I want to drive and fuck. How about you?** Well if that isn’t a contender for Best Fucking Sig Line Ever, I don’t know what is! ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/55 "2009-06-05T19:44:10Z")
We’ve gone over this several times. The line “driving is a privilege, not a right” may be good for parents responding to their kid asking if they can borrow the car but is meaningless in the context of civil rights. A privilege is something the government can grant or deny at will and it is very clear the government cannot deny a drivers license to a person without a justified reason. As long as you meet the requirements for the license then it is your right to have one and the government cannot deny it. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/56 "2009-06-05T19:49:20Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So in order for a car to be driven someone must waive their 4th amendment rights? Not every “search” is a search that implicates the 4th Amendment. For example, the police running a drug-sniffing dog around your car is not a “search”. The courts have determined that you do not have a privacy interest in the smells emanating from your car. As the holder of a driver’s license, you are deemed by law to have agreed to give a breath sample upon request by a peace officer. This “search” is hardly more intrusive than the sniff of the drug dog, and it’s something you’re told about in Driver’s Ed. In addition, the penalty for refusing is not a criminal one, but an administrative one: suspension of your driver’s license. You don’t get thrown in jail, you just can’t drive for six months (well, legally, anyway). That does not offend any notion of justice of which I can conceive. > [@](#): > > No I’m fucking not. I never signed such a paper. I never made such an agreement. Could the state consider my license an assumed agreement not criticize the president and take it away? Like I said in the other thread: there’s no rational connection behind criticizing the President and driving a car. There _is_ a rational connection between driving and drunk driving. The State has a compelling interest in combating drunk driving. > [@](#): > > Remember when the government felt “it embolden the terrorists” so there was a (retarded) safety argument against free speech. > > Could the state decide they want me to waive other Guaranteed Rights as well? What’s to stop the state from saying you can’t drive if you want to a write a piece critical of the government? The whole “rational basis” thing from the above paragraph, is what’s to stop them. Legislatures can’t pass any batshit crazy law they want. > [@](#): > > That tube is an invasion of my rights. Blowing in it is taking a piss on the grave of anyone who died for liberty. No, making an argument this poor is what’s like pissing on the grave of everyone who died for liberty. It’s shameful that you’ll wrap yourself in the flag and cry “LIBERTY!” for a proposition as poorly thought out as this one, but even more shameful that you appear unwilling to educate yourself on the issue and realize that it’s a privilege and not a right. Repeating “it’s a right, it’s a right” over and over doesn’t make you any more correct. > [@](#): > > You say they’re not asking to search my car, but what’s to stop them from deciding to in the future? How many rights must I sacrifice for a license and how would I get by in modern society without one? inb4 “fuck you your problem, I don’t care”. Personal mobility is highly dependent on being able to drive in most of the country. What’s to stop them? Well, besides the courts and a couple hundred years of legal precedent, there’s also the voters… > [@](#): > > “if I don’t have anything to hide” eh? It’s my body. Isn’t that enough? Not at all what I was saying. In order to assert that your right to privacy is being violated (you know, that “Fourth Amendment” you keep mentioning), you first have to prove that you have a privacy interest in what you’re seeking to protect. Let’s say you’re a passenger when your friend’s car is pulled over, and police want to search the car. You cannot object to the search, because you have no privacy interest in your friend’s car. So, in order to assert that your privacy is being invaded, first you have to demonstrate that you have a privacy interest in whatever’s being searched. > [@](#): > > My mouth, and the air in my lungs, doesn’t count as part my person? Are you sure you actually read that? Tell you what: keep it in your lungs, and it’s yours. Once you exhale, it’s not yours anymore. How’s that? > [@](#): > > Could the cops demand I vomit in a bag to keep my license too? This one doesn’t even deserve an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/57 "2009-06-05T19:53:32Z")
> [@riker1384](#): > > Some of those are probably people in the 16-20 age range who simply haven’t gotten a license yet. Actually, make that 16-22 and sometimes older. Most people don’t get a license on their 16th birthday. People who live on college campuses can live without a car. (According to a search on Wolfram Alhpa, about 13.5 million people are enrolled in US universities.) People who join the armed forces straight out of high school may not need a license for some time. People who live with parents after high school may have a learners permit for a while. > > New York City has a population of over 8 million. I’m sure a lot of people who grow up and live there may not get a license. > > I’m not sure how that statistic deals with illegal immigrants and criminals, but there are a lot of people who may drive but not be licensed. > > Don’t forget the old and infirm. > > Anyone else who doesn’t have a license probably lives with someone who does, or lives in an urban area where they can walk or take a bus where they need to go. One such example which just occurred to me is my brother’s wife. She didn’t get a driver’s license until she was 30, despite living all her life in the Southwest, which is notably spread out. Basically, she never bothered, because she didn’t like driving anyway, and as the youngest of nine kids, she always had someone else to take her anywhere she wanted to go. She didn’t get a license until they had kids, and even then it was only so that she could drive if there was an emergency (medical, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/58 "2009-06-05T19:54:46Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > As long as you meet the requirements for the license then it is your right to have one and the government cannot deny it. And one of those “requirements” is submitting to a breath test when asked to do so by a peace officer. Ta da! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/59 "2009-06-05T19:57:50Z")
[QUOTE=Max Torque] This one doesn’t even deserve an answer. [/QUOTE] Neither did the rest, but you did a bang up job answering them anyway. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760/60 "2009-06-05T20:09:32Z")
I’m not reading all this, but if we felt strongly enough about driving, we could amend the Constitution to create a right to drive if we wanted to. The country didn’t grind to a halt after the Founding Fathers died. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/driving-is-only-a-privilege-but-bearing-a-gun-is-a-right/498760.md?page=4)