Griffworks, I may have been on your page once, or at least I thought it might be a good idea. I'm sure all of us think training is a good idea, however freedom of speech, vote, or the press can be just as powerful, should we require training before we allow those?
The problem is, that is not how 2A reads (or 1A, or 4A, etc). As pro-gun advocates, we might be pro-shall-issue for example, however all of these restrictions (training, permits to carry, back-ground checks, etc) are agressive encroachments, and your right is only a few votes away from total infringement.
We have already given up enough ground, and the statistics don't show there is a lack of training. On the contrary, there is an abundance of criminals preying on those that can't defend themselves,. There is an abundance of politicians who have shown (Chicago for example), that you have to take every issue to the highest court (even thought the courts have clearly resolved the issue). Then, after their day in court, they still will not comply. Then, without skipping a beat, will do their best to create greater barriers in contrast to a courts decision or a law that was passed (D.C. for example).
Provided the person does not have some sort of mental limitation (infancy, incapacity, or disability), at most, training and testing should consist of a few simple questions.