The Second Amendment does not specify what method of bearing arms is permitted, therefore all methods should be permitted (see the tenth amendment.). This is starting to sound a lot like some of the more far fetched interpretations of the 2nd that we've all heard (it only applies to state militias etc.) The important phrase here is shall not be infringed by dictating to me how I may carry my weapon, the govt is infringing upon my rights. Even following your own logic, many states (my home state of Indiana included) do not allow their citizens to carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit, so my rights are still infringed upon.
First, that last part. I agree that at that point they are most definitely infringing on your rights. Which should make sense, since you were following my own logic.
As for the first part, I'd say that if the method of bearing arms is not specified, then the decision of how they are to be borne would be left to the states; provided, of course, that the right to bear them
in general is not infringed.
Also, the whole militia thing always falls flat because it
is explicitly defined as a right of "the People." Though I imagine somebody could craft an argument that the right is of the People, but only to keep and bear arms as it relates to the militia. Which would of course allow for private ownership, but carry only for the common defense. Which would not be a good thing.
All I'm saying is that, like many of the other amendments, it's possible to interpret the second in multiple ways. Your preferred method is obvious. Mine actually comes closer to yours than most people's. I just don't consider yours (or mine) to be objectively
correct.
While I do agree that it is a good idea for someone to have training and support the govt financing such training, I still do not support it being mandatory. Even government financed training can be restrictive. I cannot attend the free firearms safety classes offered by many local police departments in my state. In Indiana, a gun permit may be issued at the age of 18 (that's when I got mine) however, most of the classes offered by local police departments require the students to be at least 21. I am currently 20 and therefore cannot take said classes for another year.
Provided we're talking about classes being offered on flexible schedules (I'm talking 7 days a week) and transportation provided for those without and those with disabilities...well, I just don't see it as particularly restrictive. Also I think it should be offered at 18...you can vote and get drafted, after all.
Yeah, I know exactly how expensive it would be. Good thing it'll never happen anyway, I guess. But I figure if we can afford a war in Iraq we could afford this...especially if it means that any law-abiding citizen who wants to carry a concealed weapon can, while at the same time making sure every person who does so knows which end is which. Seems like a fair compromise, even though I know that's a dirty word.
Also, I'd also say that unless this program was run exactly as I describe, I'd prefer to see unrestricted open carry. I'm willing to compromise this far, but not one inch farther.