It's not misinterpreted by me. You served in the US Military in one of it's branches. You did not serve in the Ohio Militia, or any other state Militia. The US army, Navy, Marines etc... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. The very large National Defense establishment in which you served has taken over the responsibilities of the State Militias. You have the right to defend your home. You have the right to hunt and fish. I'm not saying you can't have guns. You can have fishing equipment as well. You are able to own a car. People aren't crying about the governments ability to regulate automobiles or to regulate the purchase and transfer of them and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. Why is it that it is unreasonable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage? Or, drive by shootings that scare you into buying a handgun that you didn't feel the need for before? So, you and I are on the same side. I chose not to have a gun. I do not rely on the police any more or less than you do. You believe as do I that it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and firing. You have admitted that you were scared because of a shooting and that is what prompted you to buy a hand gun. Were you required to take a safety course and show you knew how to handle, clean, store and fire it? What should happen if you don't store it correctly? I think you and I are 99% on the same page. You think you need a gun and I don't think I need one. That's not that big of a deal.