If i remember correctly, driving is a "privilege" not a right. So i would say no. (there is no mention of driving in the constitution, lol)
Oh, hell. There's no mention of a lot of things in the Constitution. How the hell will we ever convince the other side of the meaning of natural rights if we can't figure it out ourselves.
If driving is a privilege, so is your right to carry.
I think if you twist the constitution (like so many like to do) but in a positive way then the right to keep and bear arms would mean that to bear arms you have the right to carry arms. If you don't have the right to carry arms then it is kinda hard to bear them in defense of yourself, state and country.
Back on topic of speed limits. No more talk of my opinions of the constitution.
First, I feel driving is a mode of transportation and we are free to move about this country as we see fit. Restrictions on such movement are no more valid than restrictions on any other freedom we have that government has usurped for revenue generation/control. Second, if the state's power to regulate is a de facto indicator of an action's status as a privilege rather than a right, then carrying your firearm becomes a privilege.
Speed limits are generally too low. ...
Revenue.
Actually, a few years before you were born...
Those laws were created after speedsters began running into, or scaring the horses/buggies. Speaking of which, I haven't seen a horse & buggy on the road in years!
Infringement, not at all. Some people I see shouldn't even be allowed to drive but that's just me. Allow said people to drive without a speed limit and more people would die per day than die in a month from accidents.
.
If i remember correctly, driving is a "privilege" not a right. So i would say no.
Isn't that the same logic used by others to try and restrict firearms ownership, or to require "permits" for carry?