I'm a bit dumbfounded by most of the responses to this thread. Man has a right, but must undergo training to exercise it? So the prevailing wisdom is that we have the right to keep arms, but to bear them only if we permission from the government?
You are exactly right that with rights come responsibility, and in an ideal free society the citizen takes upon themself the responsibility when they exercise the right. However, neither humans nor society are ideal. The right to keep and bear arms brings with it some of the highest responsibilities of any right enumerated in the Constitution, because that right, when in the wrong hands (criminal, insane, ignorant, lazy, physically incapable), can cause a lot of pain and destroy a lot of lives. Many citizens, unless they are required to do so, will not take a gun education course, perhaps because they think they already know the law (which is varied and fragmented and has important elements at every level of government), or more disturbingly because they take the attitude that the law does not apply to them.
Further, ignorance is not a right. School attendance is compulsory for every individual between 5 and 18, and truancy is a crime. In most states you must either pass a driver's education course or a state-administered driving test, or both, to receive a driver's license. Without a DL, you have little or no autonomy (you are totally dependent on others to travel), which is quite simply a reduction of your liberty as the ability to travel where you wish, when you wish is a basic right of a free society, but made practically impossible in modern cities without a motor vehicle. Why do we do this? Because ignorance breeds crime. The lack of knowledge in general is a barrier to gainful employment. Ignorance of traffic laws and motor vehicle operation causes death and destruction. Vehicular manslaughter, by its very existence, specifically defines a car as a deadly weapon. Why then does it not make sense to require education regarding the first deadly weapon that comes to mind when you hear the term?
We Texans are very proud of statistics regarding gun crimes. Of the crimes committed with or in relation to a weapon, or where a weapon would facilitate or escalate the crime whether used or not (mostly violent crime), here are the stats for 2005:
CHL population = 248,874
TX general population = 22,859,968
Major crimes litigated = 34,791
% of the general pop that were convicted of a major crime = 0.00152%
% of CHL holders who were convicted of a major crime = 0.00052%
By these numbers, a CHL holder is 66% LESS likely to be convicted of a gun crime. Now, there are other variables (those who bother to get CHLs are following the law, thus separating them from those who carry concealed illegally in the first place). I don't have "control" numbers - similar stats from a state that does not require a training/qualification course - but it would appear that education on gun laws, compulsory or not, would have some affect on these stats.
The connotations of "right" and "privilege" are often placed at opposing ends when decrying regulations of the RKBA. However, when it comes right down to it, We the People have granted ourselves rights, and can, in certain circumstances, revoke them. The connotation of a "right" is that it is irrevocable; we however do so all the time to those who have not shouldered the responsibilities that those rights imply, and therefore, in our opinion, are unworthy of the right. We do not extend many rights in the first place, even to citizens, until they have met certain criteria (usually age). If they are basic human rights, or rights of citizens, then we either need an adjustment of the connotation of a "right", or a new definition of "citizen" (as citizens are those who have rights).
Rights also conflict; you have the right to free expression, but if I do not want to see or hear your expressions I have the freedom to choose not to, and therefore if you act in such a way that I cannot do so, your actions are a violation of my rights. You have the right to privacy, but I have the right to refuse to let you risk my home and life by cooking meth in the apartment under or next to me, which is enforced by granting the police the right to invade your privacy under suspicion of a danger to the public welfare. You have the RKBA, but I have the right to say you cannot bring a gun into my home or business. And even though your have the right to bear arms, the government has a mandate to promote the public welfare, and in doing so can require you to prove you have shouldered the responsibility implied by your granted right.
You are not infringed in your right to carry unless you refuse to prove you will shoulder the responsibility, or have in the past proven yourself incapable of doing so; anyone of legal age and no criminal or mental history, thus possessing full rights under the Constitution, has the right to apply for and recieve a CHL. "No-issue" state/local laws and "May-issue" states/municipalities that are "No-issue" in practice because the licensors use their discretion to reject everyone are, IMO, unconstitutional. And I think that a license to carry a concealed handgun should also grant the right to carry openly in states that do not allow open carry; a person with a CHL has, in attaining a CHL that requires qualification, proven both their ability and willingness to shoulder responsibility, and therefore no matter how they carry, society can be as sure as of anything that they pose no danger to the public welfare. And society should be educated of that fact; guns visible in society are carried by responsible, law-abiding individuals. A carry license and/or mandatory education and training simply validates that.