I'm very much in line with suntzu's post as well, but (there's always a "but" isn't there...) I ---- I'm trying to mix "feelings" with logic here...
Owning, using on private land, blah, blah -- It's all good.
I don't see an issue with some sort of simple proficiency demonstration (FL's CCP for example -- Load it, fire it downrange, make it "safe" again) if you want to have it on your person in public. I have no problem with criminal background checks - Although I probably wouldn't care if they'd revisit the difference between violent/predatory and "white collar" felons.
I *do* see it as a right *and* a responsibility. That said, if everyone went out tomorrow, with no training, without ever firing a shot - and started carrying loaded weapons around... Geez, that'd just be a bunch of irresponsible people walking around carrying loaded weapons. All the stuff the anti-gun types keep "warning" everyone about would probably happen.
I'm not talking about registration and tracking - I just don't see "proof of proficiency" as an infringement on my rights.
Without getting into rights vs. privileges (and I'll even add "the Founding Fathers had no idea about the automobile"), I can go on to private property with the permission of the owner and drive a car really, really fast without a license if he allows it. But to drive on public roadways, I need to demonstrate basic proficiency in the safe operation of an automobile and obtain a license. Keep in mind that I have a perfect understanding of the fact that most people who have just obtained that license *barely* have the skills necessary to avoid complete disaster.