Except traveling IS a right. "DRIVING" however is a commercial act which involves interstate commerce which puts it under the firm jurisdiction of Federal law which impose the driver's license requirements on the states. You have the right to travel, not to drive. So no your example does not follow because it is attempting to compare two dissimilar cases.

"The right to bear arms" is pretty clear. Your statement about militias is completely nonsensical, you didn't even bother explaining what you think that means or why you think it supports your argument. Furthermore the right to bear arms is unalienable, which means the supreme court nor the government granted the right, nor can they take it away.