Police comment on constitutional carry

[NomadMan]

Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, made the following statement concerning the new bill allowing constitutional carry.

"We just don't believe that it's a good idea for people to be carrying concealed weapons and not have participated in any training."

This director is either an idiot or a liar as the current laws do not require any training for concealed carry. He either does now the law making him an idiot, or he knows it and lies about it to scare the public.

Source: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upda...ch-Mississippi-approves-Church-Protection-Act


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, made the following statement concerning the new bill allowing constitutional carry.

"We just don't believe that it's a good idea for people to be carrying concealed weapons and not have participated in any training."

This director is either an idiot or a liar as the current laws do not require any training for concealed carry. He either does now the law making him an idiot, or he knows it and lies about it to scare the public.

Source: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upda...ch-Mississippi-approves-Church-Protection-Act

Suggestion: write to the reporter, copying him (Winter) in, make your point, then ask your question (politely) as to whether Mr. Winter is an idiot or a liar.

 

[77zach]

Suggestion: write to the reporter, copying him (Winter) in, make your point, then ask your question (politely) as to whether Mr. Winter is an idiot or a liar.

Liar or both. MS pork squealed loud when OC was legalized and with off body permitless carry last year. They were wrong, of course, with their dire predictions, not that their predictions should have any bearing on the right.

 

[Citizen]

Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, made the following statement concerning the new bill allowing constitutional carry.

"We just don't believe that it's a good idea for people to be carrying concealed weapons and not have participated in any training."

This director is either an idiot or a liar as the current laws do not require any training for concealed carry. He either does now the law making him an idiot, or he knows it and lies about it to scare the public.

Source: http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Upda...ch-Mississippi-approves-Church-Protection-Act


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether it is a good idea for peaceful people to carry the means to self-defense is entirely separate from whether it is a good idea for government to have the power to prohibit it.

The two do not equate.

Although, I am sure the good Executive Director hopes you accept his hidden premise--that government can prohibit something just because government considers it "not a good idea."

Isn't his idea delicious? More than five hundred years of fighting for rights, people fighting to get government off their backs, and it all comes down to whether exercising a given is a "good idea"?

 

[davidmcbeth]

What's that old saying?

"when I want to hear your opinion, I'll beat it outta ya?" LOL

 

[OC for ME]

suggestion: write to the reporter, copying him (winter) in, make your point, then ask your question (politely) as to whether mr. Winter is an idiot or a liar.

^^^what he said!!!^^^

 

[utbagpiper]

Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, made the following statement concerning the new bill allowing constitutional carry.

"We just don't believe that it's a good idea for people to be carrying concealed weapons and not have participated in any training."

This director is either an idiot or a liar as the current laws do not require any training for concealed carry. He either does now the law making him an idiot, or he knows it and lies about it to scare the public.

Actually, taken completely at face value, the director's words are very sage. It IS a bad idea for people to carry weapons without having received appropriate training. We all believe that training and safety are crucial.

Where I suspect Mr. Winter parts company with this group is whether such training should be mandatory or otherwise a prerequisite to legally exercising one's rights to KBA. It is the implicit, contextual claim that government should mandate such training, that rights should suffer prior restraint, that causes our disagreement. I trust we are all very supportive of being well trained in safe handling, proper use, marksmanship, and even the legal aspects of carrying and using a gun. We just don't think good ideas should be mandated prior to being able to exercise rights.

Charles

 

[solus]

Actually, taken completely at face value, the director's words are very sage. It IS a bad idea for people to carry weapons without having received appropriate training. We all believe that training and safety are crucial.

Where I suspect Mr. Winter parts company with this group is whether such training should be mandatory or otherwise a prerequisite to legally exercising one's rights to KBA. It is the implicit, contextual claim that government should mandate such training, that rights should suffer prior restraint, that causes our disagreement. I trust we are all very supportive of being well trained in safe handling, proper use, marksmanship, and even the legal aspects of carrying and using a gun. We just don't think good ideas should be mandated prior to being able to exercise rights.

Charles

sorry mate, now even when you are in your 'royal WE mode', nor in any other way or shape are you now or will you ever speak about any subject matter for this member on this public forum, therefore, please refrain from doing so in the future.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

..., nor in any other way or shape are you now or will you ever speak about any subject matter for this member on this public forum, therefore, please refrain from doing so in the future.

If there is any member of this forum who actually thinks training is a bad idea, let him say so directly. Those who are contrary and argumentative simply for the sake of being difficult do not merit my concern.

 

[solus]

mate, there was no argument and this member did say directly, you do not speak your opinion for me on this public forum.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

mate, there was no argument and this member did say directly, you do not speak your opinion for me on this public forum.

Given your typical ramblings, nobody speaks for you and I'm not sure you can even speak for yourself.

As for argumentative, you're starting to remind me of the newspaper editor who declared to his staff, "Starting tomorrow whatever our cross-town rival is for, we're against. Whatever he opposes, we support."

Hearing this, the cross town rival wryly told his staff, "We are now officially in favor of literacy and opposed to small pox."

Don't be a twit. Nobody here opposes training.

We opposes government mandated training and other prior restraints on our rights.

If you actually disagree with that assessment, man up and say it directly rather than being obtuse or thinking you're clever with some riddle.

If you don't disagree, stop getting your nose bent out of shape or looking for reasons to disagree just because you have personal issues with the guy who made the assessment. Simple put, grow up.

Charles

 

[solus]

not playing...ramble on...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

not playing...

Hell, you started the game.

ramble on...

Undoubtedly you will.

 

[OC for ME]

Ken Winter, the executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, works for a organization that is most certainly not focused on preserving or expanding individual liberty. Like all cop unions the flow of dues into its coffers is paramount.

 

[PerBast]

Required training to conceal carry

I personally feel there should be some requirement for training. more than the required 40 rounds that I was required to fire in order to submit for my concealed weapons permit. We have to have drivers ed in many cities before we are allowed to drive.

However, if they mandated training beforehand, somebody would just be making extra money at our expense. Maybe we should just have handgun safety in highschool along with drivers ed. For those in the rural communities they could combine the two courses and teach hunting from the confort of your 4X4

Michael

 

[bomber]

Given your typical ramblings, nobody speaks for you and I'm not sure you can even speak for yourself.

heh, I see I'm not the only one

 

[bomber]

I personally feel there should be some requirement for training. more than the required 40 rounds that I was required to fire in order to submit for my concealed weapons permit. We have to have drivers ed in many cities before we are allowed to drive.

However, if they mandated training beforehand, somebody would just be making extra money at our expense. Maybe we should just have handgun safety in highschool along with drivers ed. For those in the rural communities they could combine the two courses and teach hunting from the confort of your 4X4

Michael

Mandatory training is an infringement. Whether you agree to that infringement or not is up to you, but when you boil it down it is an infringement.

 

[b0neZ]

Mandatory training is an infringement. Whether you agree to that infringement or not is up to you, but when you boil it down it is an infringement.

Agreed, mandatory training is an infringement.

What about making it an elective course in high school?

 

[utbagpiper]

Agreed, mandatory training is an infringement.

What about making it an elective course in high school?

Make it a mandatory course in high school (with exceptions for sincere conscientious objectors).

The federal constitution specifically reserves to the States the authority for training of the militia. Public high school seems a perfectly appropriate time to provide the basics of that training. Include sufficient info to cover hunter safety as well. And include sufficient legal training that those who pass the course are unlikely to ever run afoul of just laws governing the use of deadly force.

The key point, of course, is that a high school diploma is not required to exercise our RKBA. But there are real advantages to having high school diploma (assuming the school has taught material of use). One advantage in this case would be reduced risk of ignorantly committing a crime involving a gun, of having an ND, or otherwise being untrained in the proper and legal handling, maintenance, and use of firearms.

Society has as much interest in making sure its members are properly trained in firearms as we do in teaching kids math, English, and history.

But if someone wants to exercise his RKBA having dropped out of school or failed the gun training provided in public schools (or attended a private/home school where such training was absent), that is his right. He simply assumes the personal liability of carrying a gun without having had that training. Maybe he has chosen to get formal training elsewhere. Maybe he was raised with guns and properly trained by parents. Maybe he is untrained.

Bottom line, he gets to exercise his rights until such time as he demonstrates he can't. Then he suffers legal consequence for his conduct. But no prior restraint.

Charles

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

he clearly doesnt care about his oath to the Constitution and should be immediately struck off. Any anti gun statement is unamerican. he may have the right to it but he must still uphold the absolute right to bear arms