I’ve been blogging for more than a decade. I know a troll when I am one. I mean, read one. And as much as I view the boys in blue through a red mist, I’ve never encountered a cop that’s as much of a jerk as this one at ksl.com. “Officers have to go through a stringent hiring process that includes a psychological examination. The same is true for federal agents. After these tests along with backgrounds and numerous other hiring steps, we are trained how to use a firearm and when to use it appropriately.” That’s the wind-up (in the British sense of the term). Here’s the [bean ball] pitch . . .

In this state [Utah], however, you too can carry a gun in an open carry setup just like law enforcement as long as you have the lofty qualifications of being of age and not convicted of domestic violence or a felony. This is where the gun advocates stomp and shout that I would like to take away guns and have the government control your lives. … I’ll wait for the stomping of shoes and gnashing of teeth.

Now that the yelling and writing of letters to the editor are done, I’ll continue. I’m merely suggesting an additional step to the firearm purchasing process. Now it may not be a quick step, but why are you in a hurry to buy a gun? Last-second Christmas gift? Forgot an anniversary and the wife really needs that pink Walther P22?

I suggested this idea in one of my lively gun debates, and the person I was arguing with stated that would just be another way “they” could control who purchased guns and who couldn’t. They continued with “they” making it more difficult to overthrow said government. I was fairly certain this person wouldn’t pass a psychological.

I do hear the “overthrow government” argument more than I think I should. I imagine this person saw “Red Dawn” one too many times and thinks his AR-15 and Desert Eagle are going to stand up against a tank or a drone firing Hellfire missiles. Wolverines!

Those, dear readers, are not the words of a cop. That’s the syntax, style and trolling of a professional writer. A journalist trying to whip-up pro-gun Bee Hive Staters into a frenzy. IMHO. And how.

Since I’ve already got people in a lather, why don’t we have a database that shows guns owned by what person? People always argue that cars are much more dangerous than guns, yet we have to register our cars. It would be good to know if a person just got out of court and immediately attempted to purchase a gun. Registering guns would also hold owners responsible who sold their guns to criminals in the black market.

The common argument is that the criminals don’t have to follow the laws, they get guns through other means. Well, if every gun is registered, we will know where they got it. I have been looking back through a few of the recent shootings, and most of the suspects appeared to have obtained and possessed the guns lawfully.

In Utah, we have had many individuals walking around with open carry weapons around malls and theaters. Should I still feel safe and hope you are a sane person? If you are that person, should you really be offended if police approach you with guns drawn? . . .

I would like to see who can offer me the best explanation on why we shouldn’t require a psychological and registering your gun purchase.

See that? A request for both sides of these issues. I call bullshit. Mind you, I’ve got nothing against anonymous postings on the web. But I do have a problem with a major news org perpetrating this kind of obvious trolling.

Actually, strike that. I don’t. That could be seen as a wee bit hypocritical. And there’s value in “rallying the base” as they say. But really. Why fake this as a cop?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

  1. Because labeling this person as a cop, an authority figure who “justifiably” can have a gun in the eyes of the antis, lends credibility to their point of view. Supposedly.

  2. No matter who says what the end game is always less freedom, more regulation,and tighter restrictions on those who have firearms. Funny how the people advocating Gun Control are rabidly against voter ID.

    • Plus one for the voter ID. I don’t get that one, why not make sure voters are who they say they are? It’s true Democrats don’t want to ensure citizens vote, effectively giving rights to those who aren’t provided them in the constitution and take away rights given to citizens provided for in the constitution.

      • I once had a liberal tell me that voter ID laws were just veiled attempts at racism by the Republicans. Because why would we want to make sure people are who they say they are when they go to vote? That would be preposterous.

        Gun control nuts tend to be freedom haters, who love big government. Hmmmm. I wonder why people who love big government would hate an armed populace?

      • Plus 1000 for voter ID. It’s really not hard to carry an ID, and it’s clearly important for alleviating fraud. In the case of a voter ID, fraud on a massive level. If integrity of of any value, I cannot fathom why IDs are not required to vote in CA.

        • How would we know if there was or not? It seems like something that isn’t easily measurable for a variety of reasons.

        • karlb, I love how quick everyone is to point out that voter fraud doesn’t exist on some massive level, the implication being that we shouldn’t make a simple attempt to stop it if it’s only happening on a small level, makes zero sense. besides that, the statement is thrown out there with no backing whatsoever. where’s your evidence? Why should I not worry about it if it’s only happening on a small level? recall florida in 2000? I could vote a dozen times this coming election if I wanted and I guarantee you I wouldn’t get caught (not having to show ID and all….) so of course it doesn’t get reported on some massive level…. I’ve lived in 3 swing states since the last election….

          http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

        • I could point to the studies that show that there have been amazingly few cases of actual voter fraud found in the US. Now, I know the rebuttal to that would be that these studies are wrong, but it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. There are a lot of stories out there of voter fraud, but when these are legitimately investigated, they prove to be wrong. Please, give me proof, statistics, number of prosecutions, anything beyond anecdotal evidence. And please, don’t go to Free Republic or any similar site. Since I don’t take Huffington Post claims seriously, I am not going to take equally partisan sites claims seriously, either.

        • So Karlb, if all the tales of voter fraud are mostly untrue, the the same must be true for all the tales from the left of voter disenfranchisement.

          Please give proof and not anecdotal “evidence”.

        • Red Herring.

          Where did I say anything about this? Please note, I specifically said I don’t take partisan arguments seriously without legitimate evidence. For example, the link to the voter fraud in Minnesota was interesting, but with a couple of clicks of the mouse, it was easy to see that the case of voter fraud was overstated: the Minnesota Supreme Court and the county prosecutor agreed. It was not a white-wash, it seems, for there were some 70 people charged with voting illegally.

  3. Hmm. I could be wrong but im pretty sure that the last time I bought a shotgun, there was paperwork sent to ATF as well as the local P.D. This was in Murray, UT.

  4. “I would like to see who can offer me the best explanation on why we shouldn’t require a psychological and registering your gun purchase”

    Cops like this guy need the mental/emotional testing since they carry more than a gun. They represent the power of the state and carry a ‘Get out of jail free’ card after committing most any act.

    Who gets to determine what the criteria of such a test will be and what constitutes passing? Any tests will evolve and grow eventually into an almost impossible test to pass for a large segment of the population. It is called citizen control. As for calling for registration it is the predecessor to confiscation or at least far tighter demanding rules for on or off site gun storage. Therefore reducing or eliminating the ability to use guns when deemed necessary by the citizen. The average American citizen has far more to fear from the politicians in Washington DC than they do religious extremists on the other side of the world. The powerful American super-rich and political ruling elite love the poor, weak, stressed-out, and dependent citizens since they are busy creating so many more of them.

    Robert, you were too gracious and polite in calling this cop a jerk. I would write what he is as in n-a-z-i (assuming he really is a cop and not someone like Josh Humbug err I mean Horwitz) however the filters would not publish such a comment.

      • I was wondering about that too and then figured it was my overly paranoid conspiracy-thinking self imagining it was a gun-grabber. The manipulation attempts are nothing unsurprising of many Left-thinkers.

  5. Fortunately, ksl.com still hosts an excellent free classified service for private firearm sales. Hopefully it’s still online when I move back to Utah.

  6. Wow. Set phasers to “troll”, Mr. Sulu. This guy reminds me of the all-time master troll, the dreaded “Mall Ninja”.

  7. Registering guns so that criminals don’t get their hands on them and so that the authorities know where they originate doesn’t work.

    I’m British now living in New Zealand and know how the British system works.

    Since 1920 in the UK, every firearm which has been imported, manufactured, sold, transferred, destroyed or disposed of has been logged and the Police notified. This is a mandatory requirement (the notification) and as Firearms Certificates (licences) are renewed every three years and the Police check the firearms listed on the certificate and their records, it is unlikely that anyone could dispose of a firearm to a criminal without the Police becoming aware.

    After 92 years, they STILL cannot state where a weapon recovered from a criminal originated – and criminals have easier and cheaper access to firearms than the law abiding.

    Still in another 92 years they may have cracked the problem, eh? In the meantime, register those guns …

  9. The auto vs gun argument is bogus anyway.

    Registering cars, and the requiring of drivers licenses doesn’t do anything for the citizen. It only helps law enforcement track down “possible” criminals.

    In Oregon we are not required to register our guns. So when a cop does a traffic stop and finds a gun and runs it so see if it’s stolen, it doesn’t tell him who the owner of the gun is. It just says Yes or No on whether it’s been reported stolen. Cars should be the same way. Why does a cop need to know everything about me if I’m doing nothing wrong. If the car I’m in is stolen, then the owner will report it and it will show up when he runs it.

    Drivers licenses are a joke as well. The intent is to makes sure that anyone that gets behind a wheel is a qualified and competent driver. But take a look around at the other drivers the next time you’re on the road. The Oregon Victims Impact Panel states that 1 in 7 cars (statistically) is drunk, or under the influence. And that doesn’t count the people driving suspended, or who have no license at all.

    So requiring a license, paying a fee, taking a class and passing a test doesn’t do anything to make the roads safer. All it does (just like gun control) is create more hassle and cost to the law abiding citizen, create another way for government to zap us with more fee’s/taxes, and give law enforcement and government more leverage against us.

    • I live in Oregon too, and there is one small caveat to the “car and guns” argument…..guns are a right……driving a car isnt…….thats exactly why we have a drivers license, fees etc, etc, ad nauseum…… free travel is guarenteed, but nothing says you have to use a car…..

  10. Big Government is a euphemism for Tyranny
    Words have power. Don’t buy into the Leftist Truth Speak Use the Correct terms

  11. 1. Psychological testing sounds scientific, until we look into the assumptions behind those tests. There’s far too much waving of hands when the facts don’t support the hypothesis in psychology for me to accept a test as the qualification for exercising a right.

    2. Registration is proposed for one reason: The government cannot take what it doesn’t know about.

    • re: your point no.2, having once been on the receiving end of government “request for voluntary surrender of all registered firearms” or face military prosecution, I can assure you that you are absolutely correct on this.

  12. So it’s officially impossible for a police officer to also be a good writer? Hmmm…

    Some people (not me; I recognize a troll well written article when I see one) might say it’s impossible for a former car salesman to to be a good writer. It may be trolling (rabble-rousing, demagoguery, whatever), it may even be professional-level writing, but that has nothing to do with the current or former profession of whoever wrote it.

    I do think Officer Anonymous Troll hit one thing right on the head, however. The whole “so we can overthrow our government” line of thinking is stupid.

    For one thing, you’d never manage it if you tried. It’s just a practical reality. Remember that thing we call the Civil War? It didn’t work, and an armed uprising *against your own country* won’t work any better now than it did then. (Yes, I know the Revolutionary War was also an armed uprising.)

    For another thing, bloated and damaged though they are, the democratic process and the constitution still apply in this country. Peaceful change is still an option.

    For ANOTHER thing, every time someone trots out that line, it makes all gun owners seem a little less sane and more threatening to gun-control people who already think firearms have an evil will of their own. Stick to arguments that don’t make you look like a lunatic; you’ll find they work better.

    Okay, I’m done now. Let the flaming begin.

    • Peaceful change is off the table when they start to take your rights away. They always start with your guns. Look at any dictatorship in the world. First thing they do when they gain control is take away the guns. That way, the people dont have any option but to submit. Well, or die.

      Edit: Also, Vietnam ring a bell for taking on the US gov? How about Afghanistan?

      • If the US actually abandons the constitution and becomes a real dictatorship in my lifetime, I’ll be a member of the resistance (armed, if necessary). Until then, even if some people want to take away some of our rights, we still have the ability to peacefully oppose them.

        If the second amendment is ever killed, it won’t be by a dictator. It’ll be like England, which is still a democracy, even without firearms. It’ll be a slow death at the hands of a populace that’s dumb enough to believe guns can be legislated out of existence and doesn’t care enough to preserve the right of self-defense anymore. What actually worries me the most is getting legislated into a corner where only a wealthy, connected few can afford to have a gun, and it’s a small step from there to deciding that the masses don’t want or need that outdated second amendment right, anyway.

        Fortunately, considering the general public climate and the growing number of gun owners, we’re actually winning the contest right now. If we’re smart about it, maybe we can keep on winning until the second amendment is treated like the natural right that it is.

        Not sure what your point is with Vietnam and Afghanistan…

        • Do you remember writing this: “The whole “so we can overthrow our government” line of thinking is stupid.

          For one thing, you’d never manage it if you tried. It’s just a practical reality. Remember that thing we call the Civil War? It didn’t work, and an armed uprising *against your own country* won’t work any better now than it did then. (Yes, I know the Revolutionary War was also an armed uprising.)”

          Thats what Vietnam and Afghanistan were about. Armed insurrection against the US Gov. Where they won (Vietnam), and have used up 11 years and boatloads of money (Afghanistan) and we still cant say we have “won” against the rebels.

        • I see where you were going now. But the cases are different. Vietnam and Afghanistan are foreign countries, not United States citizens fighting their own government at home.

    • It’s not that. It’s the way the writer manipulates the readers’ expectations to push their buttons. Believe it or not that takes a LOT of practice and exposure to journalistic style. Either that or a really good/bad editor.

  14. Given an article I just read about who is becoming a cop these days given lacking job opportunities in other fields it’s far from impossible that the blogger is a (semi)professional writer AND a cop.

  15. Frankly, I couldn’t care less whether reprehensible screeds promoting oppression and tyranny were written by a cop or anyone else. A tyrant is a tyrant, whether he wears a badge or not, and I hate them all equally. Though I’m not a religious person, I always liked this quote:

    “The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.”
    ― G.K. Chesterton

    And if this guy is a cop, then all he’s doing is further confirming the argument that police are, by and large, soulless government thugs who have more in common with goosestepping footmen than “peace officers.”

  16. rather he’s a cop or not he’s an anti gunner. And to mangle a phrase from my favorite Klingon “anti gunners have no honor”.

    As far as ID for voting goes, the lefties have no problem making me provide ID, go through a background check not too mention a waiting period and my favorite, since I live in California, I have to give a thumbprint for every handgun I buy. All that to exercise a “right” under 2a but if you suggest voter ID they scream rape. No honor.

  17. I realize this guy wrote well, but why can’t he be a cop? Cops are just tools of the State(I mean tool in both meanings). Their masters tell them what to do, any they follow, happy to tramp on citizens.

  18. So much focus and attention on law abiding citizens and their carry guns, no mention of vile scum who take joy inflicting misery on the rest of us.

  19. I live in Utah and this frustrates me for several reasons

    1. Ksl is traditionally gun friendly so allowing this sly anti gun rhetoric frustrates me

    2. Law enforcements takes an oath to serve and protect, not offer pundit like views on subjects (I have tremendous respect for law enforcement, but if you want to be a cop be a cop, if you want to be Stephen Colbert then be Stephen Colbert)

    3. I have lived here for 10 years and in the metro areas of Utah I can think of a handful of times I even have seen open carry. But reading this “anonymous cop’s” post he makes it seem like we live in Robbers Roost and everybody has a sidearm strapped on. Utah is one of the safest places I have been, that is one of many reasons why I live here, that and good gun laws, which I think help contribute to the safe place.

    Now if officer anonymous complained about the lack of skill in native Utah drivers I would tip my hat to him there, they do suck at driving, but open carry come on you rarely see that ever. Our license plates say “greatest snow on earth” not “carry your firearms in the open”

  20. In puerto rico all the things the troll mention happen by law & the 2A does not apply its a privilege . The goverment know how many bullets you purchase via a data base, you show the id & enter a pin number. If you buy a lot the police pay a visit. We struggle & get the harassment from the police. In the police armory perps stole 100 AR plus 30k in ammo. After the incident the search every gun shop, see how stupid the are we can only have semi auto & a lot of deaths are shot from full auto. Where the perps buy them? Why the police have answer this question? But because they know who have guns and were is your addres we are the scapegoats and harass us . 

  21. What I love is that people don’t think a large number of individuals could use semi automatic rifles to devastating effect against the military if things ever came to that. I think they imagine row after row walking down a street up to a tank. Perhaps insurgents in Afghanistan never got the message?

  22. Considering the avalanche of e.g. fake “Iraq veterans” since the beginning of Obama’s 2008 campaign, I’m perfectly willing to believe (though not to assume – there’s a difference) that this is a troll. The part that really jumps out at me is where he asks if, when you’re open carrying, you should really be upset “if cops approach you with guns drawn.” That’s not anyone’s standard procedure, and it’s doubtful that a real cop would have written something like that.

    • Really?

      OC is theoretically legal in PA but on pafoa.org there are a bunch of posts about people being proned out on the sidewalk for nothing more then exercising their rights.

  23. I am 100% against national gun registration; but, at the same time, I am well aware that de facto national gun registration (through the states) already exists. It would only take 2 phone calls, or emails, for anyone at the FBI or ATF to get a list of every gun I’ve ever bought, or presently own.

    This said, I do have a personal, ‘pet peeve’: I spend a lot of time on public firing lines; and it annoys the Hell out of me, to see the lack of: education, experience, and competence routinely demonstrated by so many of my home state’s gun owners. A very high percentage of these people don’t even know basic range commands or protocol.

    I am, also, sick and tired of being swept by the other guy’s muzzle! It’s not always possible to stand on the far right of the line; so it becomes inevitable that someone on your right is going to be sweeping you with his muzzle.

    Then, there are the dozens and dozens of, ‘casual gun owners’ who, while they might be familiar with the usual range rules, still feel perfectly free to stretch or bend, the rules to suit their own whims. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s such a bad idea for municipal governments to require both firearm safety education and demonstrated safe gun-handling skills from those who wish to own a gun.

    (While the Instructor is teaching a class he could, also, be keeping an eye out for the, ‘guy with the orange hair’ to join the class.) 😉

    • Registration in my state is thankfully prohibited by the Arizona Constitution.

      If gun ranges are so “dangerous” where are all the stories about NDs?

      Any chilling of the 2A is unacceptable, and your Nazi-esque training requirement is just that.

      Bet you have no problem with the sporting purpose argument either, do you?

Comments are closed.