The Geek Weighs in...
For starters, I believe that this society has generally accepted that driving is a privilege, and not a right.
The States asserted it, and the People accepted it, or at least weren't able to mount an effective opposition to it.
That was a bad move, IMO, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it ultimately and directly set the stage for our current state of Infringement of RKBA.
The most frequent line of reasoning is more or less like this:
Cars are big, powerful, and potentially dangerous pieces of machinery that require special knowledge to operate safely, and therefore the state has an interest in public safety to ensure yada yada yada.
Horses are also big, powerful, and potentially dangerous animals that require special knowledge to "operate" safely.
At one time, horse knowledge was as common as driving knowledge is today.
At one time, horses could be misused, "driven" too fast, and accidents DID happen, people WERE hurt, and lives WERE lost.
To my knowledge, this did not result in horse training initiatives, licensure, or any of that.
Knowledge gap: What did they do when someone negliglently injured another with a horse or wagon? My _assumption_ is that if warranted, charges of negligent whatever was appropriate were brought, and that a separate "horse offense" wasn't necessary.
Probably the next most frequent argument in favor of driving as privilege is the issue that the "privilege" extend to the use of use of public roads and highways, and that you can drive without license on your own property, to which I reply:
Um, last time I checked, it was OUR taxes that paid for said public roads and highways, and therefore we have the right to use them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Shifting gears a bit
----------------------------------------------------------
It IS generally accepted that we enjoy a "right of travel" on the public byways. Frequently, the snide comeback is "very well, then you can WALK, or ride a horse".
There are a lot of flaws with that position. First: pedestrians and horses are generally prohibitted on the highway, and even if they weren't, it'd be a bad idea to walk or ride there anyway.
Furthermore, we find ourselves living in a world that has evolved over the last 100 years around the automobile, to the degree that it is largely impractical to carry on normally with your life without an automobile*. It isn't practical to work, obtain food, or engage in all the normal pursuits of our culture. Being denied the "privilege" of driving isn't like being banned from the movies; it has severe lasting consequences in your life, and that is why many people who have their licenses revoked or suspended have little practical alternative to ignoring that fact, lest they lose their jobs and ability to provide for their families.
*Urban areas are the significant exception to this, but don't tell me to move to the city, as you simply don't have the right to dictate how or where I shall live.
----------------------------------------------------------
Shifting gears a bit
----------------------------------------------------------
And by advocating for driving as privilege, what are we defending here, anyway? Under what circumstances is the "privilege" revoked?
Typically, it's revoked "in the interest of public safety" for:
-Serious crimes: generally vehicular homicide and mayhem, based on the theory that a person who did that once may tend to do it again.
-DWI/DUI based on the theory that such irresponsible behavior is SO dangerous that its repeat must be prevented and
-Accumulation of "too many points", based on the theory that the driver in question demonstrates disregard for safety, and is therefore a menace to society. (aside: we all know that speeding is a crock. Limits are preposterously low, and I've NEVER seen a policeman doing 55, and in some places, ticketing is blatantly and openly considered a REVENUE activity, with minimal or no pretense paid to "safety".)
-Underage drinking, EVEN IF THERE IS NO AUTO INVOLVED. This is based on a nebulous theory I don't pretend to understand.
In all these cases, there is punishment, ranging from fines to prison, and a revocation based entirely on what a person MIGHT do. In some cases the prediction of future behavior is well founded, and in other cases it isn't, and in some, it's outright suspect to say the least.
But certainly, for good or bad, the precedent of curtailing rights/privileges is now solidly established, where it was not before.
------------------------------------------------------------
Winding it up
------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance of this has set the stage, and is directly relevant to our current situation with RKBA.
The People has accepted an assertion of the State it probably shouldn't have, re: driving.
Thus conditioned, many people are starting to accept another Assertion of the State, that the RKBA is at the pleasure of the state, and this they MUST NOT DO.
Even the language is similiar: Unlicensed firearms owners are BAD, just like unlicensed drivers. Unregistered firearms are also bad, they're out of control, just like unregistered cars.
It's too late for cars. Soon, it'll be too late for guns, unless we engage in continuous action to engage the levers and mechanisms of power to change the outcome.
Phew.
---------------------------------------------
Final Note:
---------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, the dark and fascist state of NJ passes out licenses to people over 25 WITHOUT A PHOTO, which reminds me, it's time to renew.
(Not that I'm suggesting my wife is "hijab-clad," just that she regularly swaps licenses with someone that bouncers think is her 
