Another Idiot Dangles Penis (Assault Rifle) in Public (Utah House Judiciary Committee Hearing)

Gail Turpin
Several observations after spending the afternoon in the Utah House Judiciary Committee hearings on 2 gun bills. Rep. Brian King and Rep. Patrice Arent are such a credit to their constituents and the Utah Democratic party. Both so smart and asked such relevant questions. Nineveh Dinha of Channel 13 is drop dead gorgeous. I had the pleasure of sitting next to Jean Welch Hill, who spoke eloquently on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of SLC on the need for reasonable gun control. I sure wish she was our Attorney General right now! The room was packed., complete with the guy with an assault rifle on his back, and the guy who was out of order so security came in and took him aside. I saw some of my favorite people and legislators, and it really is amazing to watch democracy in action.

Another Utah Idiot Packs Assault Rifle into Utah House Judiciary Committee hearingAssault Rifle in Public

Utah can be a very embarrassing place sometimes.

, ,

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on February 20, 2013 - 6:42 pm

    That there is a mass-murder weapon. Or, if you are with the Gun Lobby, it’s a “modern sporting rifle.” Murder is a “sport” in their minds, I suppose.

  2. #2 by Epraim James on February 20, 2013 - 9:43 pm


  3. #3 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 7:23 am

    LET’S be honest. He’s scared of the thing. That’s understandable–so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don’t have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

    A man does. He has to say things like “One Taniqua Hall is one too many,” as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle’s gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

    He often accuses men with guns of “compensating for something.” The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren’t intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can’t touch a gun, he doesn’t want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he’ll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

    But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It’s one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it’s another to impose the same handicap onto others.

    People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn’t know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don’t sit cross-legged. That they’re able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

    There is more — worth reading

    • #4 by Cliff on February 21, 2013 - 7:42 am

      Bob S,

      For the record, know well how to use an assault rifle. I can assemble and reassemble an Uzi and M-16 blindfolded in about thirty seconds.

      …and I have an intimate familiarity with a AR-15 and most of the classics. There is an excellent likelihood, I am a better shot than you (next time you’re in Utah, lets find out).

      All of your assumptions about me are wrong.

      The fact of my familiarity with guns AND gun NUTS contributes to my passion to control them like cars and child porn.

      At last check, 75% of NRA members support universal background checks. And 90% of gun owners would say, this guy is not helping his cause, but rather hurting it.

      • #5 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 8:26 am


        Never said that was about you — what is the old saying “Guilty dogs barking and all”.

        I notice that you are admitting that this isn’t about controlling criminals but just gun owners in general.

        Again, I don’t care of 99% of the people support something that is unconstitutional. It is still unconstitutional.

        You talk about child pron — is that from familiarity ?
        Do you support background checks, registration, one computer/camera a year limits? Limits on card storage capacity?
        How about licensing — do you have a license to own your computer? After all, you could suddenly start producing child porn if you aren’t already doing it.

  4. #6 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 9:09 am

    Bob S.–

    Can’t be said enough. A majority of gun owners support gun safety legislation. The Gun Lobby represents only the firearms industry.

  5. #7 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 11:28 am

    Have ask here.

    1. What laws did this guy break?


    2. What harm did this guy do?

  6. #8 by Cliff Lyon on February 21, 2013 - 11:35 am

    Firstly Bob S, I invoked Child Porn as a rather relevant Constitutional question that is raised by YOUR 2A interpretation. I apologize if something else “popped” in your mind.

    #2. I did not say the guy broke any laws. I said he was an idiot.

    He is an idiot for showing up in public with an assault rifle under the mistaken belief that it would help his cause rather than hurt it.

    • #9 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 11:50 am


      I don’t understand where you are going with the child porn angle. The act of producing it causes harm to the child.
      Yet you say we should control guns the way we control child porn, is that right?

      So people should be able to buy as many cameras as they want?
      Sophisticated cameras like professional photographers use without a license, without a background check, without Law Enforcement Officials approval?
      People should be able to carry their cameras across state line without having to have a license from both states?
      People can buy as many high capacity storage devices as they want?
      People should be able to leave their cameras laying around unsecured regardless of the age of their child?
      You want to make it legal for children to buy cameras at nearly any age without parental permission?

      Just exactly how do you want to control guns like control child porn?

      So since you often accuse/hint that all gun owners are responsible for any firearm related violence — are you responsible for child porn?

    • #10 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 12:00 pm

      And so you admit he didn’t break any laws.

      You also fail to state that he harmed anyone.
      You try to claim he hurt his cause.
      With whom?

      You…as if you were ever going to change your mind.
      With the people testifying for gun control? Unlikely.

      He may – just maybe – have caused a couple of fence sitters to move to the anti-rights side by showing up with a police patrol rifle (isn’t it funny how the police can carry the same weapon without scaring everyone?)

      But he could — again just maybe — could have shown a few people that the average citizen can carry such a ‘dangerous and scary looking weapon’ and not go crazy, not go shooting up the place, not murder innocent men, women and children.

      So the question becomes — what made people change their mind?
      I say if it was to the gun control side, they changed their mind because of an inanimate object. Showing they are scared of pieces of plastic and metal.

      Pro-rights people look at the individual, observe his behavior and see he did nothing threatening.

  7. #11 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 11:50 am

    The Utah legislature is funny that way. Anybody can wander into our State Capitol with a loaded gun. But I was in a hearing once that included our governor and some high-ranking federal officials. The Highway patrol troopers watched everyone in the room, and no member of the public was allowed to stand up as long as the big shots were present. The potential for mass shootings makes for a tense atmosphere.

    • #12 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 12:03 pm


      Isn’t it amazing that the average citizen is actually trusted by others with firearms. Bet that makes you nervous.

      So how long has this been the policy and how many mass murders have happened at the Capitol?

  8. #13 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 12:42 pm

    The Highway Patrol troopers were nervous, not me. It was a highly contentious meeting, featuring the head of the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Many of those in attendance were vocal BLM-haters, and some may have been armed. Hence the unusual rule forbidding anyone to stand up during the meeting – not to ask a question, not to go to the bathroom.

    I could not find out how long the Utah State Capitol has been open to gun-toting visitors, but not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.

    Some of the Utah Highway Patrol officers charged with maintaining security at Utah’s most prominent government building also have some qualms about the current gun policy.

    “Right now we just kind of have to do the best we can with what we have,” says Sgt. Wade Breur.

    A gunman with evil intent wandering into the Legislature “would probably get shots off before we could respond. That’s kind of sad, but it’s possible,” he says.

    “We know some of the trouble-makers that have concealed weapons permits, but the law doesn’t allow us to detain or question them. We do watch them more carefully. Some of them are kind of hotheads.”

    Utah allows firearms on state property including public schools, college campuses and state parks. Courthouses, correctional facilities, churches, private residences and businesses (including bars) must post signs if they don’t want to allow loaded guns. Our state is a fool’s paradise for gun lovers.

    • #14 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 1:10 pm


      So state employees guarding more state employees don’t think that state citizens exercising their rights is a good idea.

      And you support that?
      I’m guess you also support ‘free speech zones’ — areas the city or state establishes so people can protest peacefully.

      It must be inconceivable to you for all that liberty to exist and the crime rate be as low as it is.

      Violent Crimes

      With a violent crime rate well below the national rate (224.4 versus 473.5 violent crimes per 100,000 people), Utah continues to be one of the safest places to live in the United States in terms of violent crime. Only South Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, and Maine have lower rates of violent crime. Of all the crimes committed in Utah in 2006, violent crimes accounted for only 6% of the total, with property crimes accounting for the remaining 94% (see Figure 3).

      It is almost as if people behave themselves whether or not they have a police patrol rifle for the most part.

      I think the only fools in the state are those who think another law is going to magically make criminals stop breaking the law.

  9. #15 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 1:16 pm

    Bob S.–

    If public safety at the State Capitol were my job, I would not be happy that the Utah legislature refuses to take basic precautions. And guess who will get the blame if a legislator gets shot? The Highway Patrol troopers, whose jobs are made more dangerous by the lack of gun safety laws.

    As far as violent crime, like I said Utah is a fool’s paradise. We’ve been lucky except for a few incidents like Trolley Square in 2007. Six police officers were shot in Ogden on January 4, 2012 during a drug raid.

    I wonder how many more idiots like these guys are roaming our streets.

    • #16 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 1:53 pm


      Please continue on with your public safety job for a few minutes. List — by name and address- the people you wouldn’t trust to carry firearms around their representatives?

      So a shooting by a possible mentally ill/ possibly muslim terrorist and a shoot out by drug dealers is what you want to use as an excuse to make it harder for other people to keep and bear arms.
      Which of your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers or citizens do you think are suddenly going to commit a terrorist act or deal drugs?

      Which person are you referring to as “idiots” — I would put my money on the dad who failed to call the police, confronted two strangers — isn’t that what you castigate Zimmerman for doing? — and then shot the two guys.

      The Judge also called Campos’ self defense “pure crap”. The judge went on to say that “You don’t get out of a car with a gun and then claim self defense.”

      So –maybe we need a license, background check, mental health screening for people who want to be parents, right?
      Had the local law enforcement been allowed to say yea or nay on Campos reproducing; he might not have over reacted to a neighborhood watch innocently doing their job.

  10. #17 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 2:10 pm

    Bob S.–

    I don’t post anyone’s address on a blog. Why would I want to?

    I linked to the Bluffdale neighborhood watch incident precisely because nobody was mentally ill, a Muslim, or a drug dealer possibly suffering from PTSD. They were just typical Utah idiots with guns, and they saw themselves as law-abiding (although neighborhood watch is supposed to be unarmed).

    A list of Utah’s 49 homicides in 2012

    Accidental shootings and suicides outnumber homicides in Utah, but I could not find a complete list.

    • #18 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 2:32 pm

      Okay Richard,

      Don’t post their addresses, just name the people in your life you don’t trust to be armed.

      Isn’t that what this is really about? Your distrust of everyone else?

      I linked to the Bluffdale neighborhood watch incident precisely because nobody was mentally ill, a Muslim, or a drug dealer possibly suffering from PTSD.

      You are probably right about that….and thanks for proving a point – it happens so rarely it is newsworthy and extraodinary infrequently. Utah is the 5 safest state in the Union.

      Do you really feel it is necessary to further restrict people’s rights in order to prevent one or two more murders?

      And how many more rapes, robberies, assaults will occur because the criminals won’t give up their guns while you disarm/restrict the law abiding?

      The law abiding citizens you don’t trust. So name the people you don’t trust. Put it out there and let everyone know how fearful of them you really are.

      According to your state government, homicides wasn’t in the top 15 causes of death in 2010 unless there was mostly firearm related ‘unintentional injuries’.

  11. #19 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 2:47 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’m happy that Utah gun owners, even those who carry a concealed weapon with them, have a pretty good record of not shooting people.

    I’m happy too that most of those gun owners back gun safety legislation. They realize that each and every preventable criminal act, suicide and accidental shooting is a very big deal for those affected. Utah gun deaths outnumbered motor vehicle deaths in 2009.

  12. #20 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 2:57 pm


    You are ducking the issue. You said if you were in charge you would be ‘unhappy ‘ if they failed to take basic precautions. Such as disarming people.

    So come on, fess up. Which of your friends, family, coworkers, neighbors and fellow citizens don’t you trust?

    Name the people, even though they have a good record of not shooting people, that you feel have to be disarmed to talk to their representatives.

    Name the people who shouldn’t be allowed more then 10 rounds in a magazine in case they start killing people.

    Name the people who you think need a mental health screening.

    Name the people you are afraid of.

  13. #21 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 4:05 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’m becoming less happy. Our genius state legislators are now trying to pass a bill to allow concealed carry for all gun owners, without a permit or any training.

    Can you understand that I’m not afraid? I’m concerned for public safety, not MY safety. I’m not living in Wayne LaPierre Land, where armed gangs can invade your house at any moment. 😉

    • #22 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 6:01 pm

      So Richard,

      Step up. Tell the people you associate with, the people you live near, the people you work with, shop with, etc.

      Tell them which one of them you don’t trust. Or do you not trust anyone?

      Yes you are afraid. Hiding behind “concerned for public safety’ isn’t going to work. You are afraid of your fellow citizens if they are allowed to carry without license or training.

      You are afraid that your neighbors will shoot you like the neighborhood watch guy got shot.

      Admit it. You are afraid of the people around you.That is why you want mandate licensing, and training and background checks and mental health screenings..

      Fear but you can’t step up and admit it.

      I know the odds of something happening and I accept them. I know they are low.

      The difference between us is simple. I accept responsibility for my safety and that of my family and have plans to do something about it in case the odds don’t play out.

      I”m not trying to disarm everyone. I’m not trying to subject everyone to mental health screenings. I”m not acting out of fear and demanding people seeing their representatives disarm.

      YOU ARE.

    • #23 by Bob S. on February 22, 2013 - 5:54 pm

      Still waiting for you to tell me and everyone else the name of the people you think would endanger public safety.

      Come no Richard. Name the people you think need a background check, a mental health screening, police approval before they exercise their rights

  14. #24 by Richard Warnick on February 21, 2013 - 4:09 pm

    • #25 by Bob S. on February 21, 2013 - 6:02 pm


      Do you deny there are people trying to implement Sharia law in every nation?

  15. #26 by Richard Warnick on February 22, 2013 - 9:31 am

    Nicely loaded question. Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion, also freedom FROM religion. Rep. Gohmert is a lunatic.

    • #27 by Bob S. on February 22, 2013 - 5:52 pm


      It isn’t a loaded question, unless you think that imposing Sharia law is a good thing.

      So, are there people trying to impose Sharia law in every nation, even America or not?

  16. #28 by Larry Bergan on February 23, 2013 - 1:20 pm

    ’m sorry, but this guy had to have been there to make fun of the gun nuts.

    There’s no other explanation.

    We live in a strange world of fabricated “reality”. Sure wish we weren’t!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: