By: Diane Benjamin
Why do Tari Renner, David Hales, Dick Durbin and a slew of other so-called leaders love to do interviews on WJBC?
Because they can get by with saying anything and are rarely challenged!
Low information voters are easily misled by low information media.
The latest case in point:
Today WJBC is running a NEWS story with quotes from the mouth of Dick Durbin. It pertains to the tragic murder of 9 people in South Carolina.
Little Dickie laments that Republicans in recent years have blocked gun control laws. He claims the shooter should never have been allowed to purchase or own a gun, there should have been a law.
Facts don’t matter to WJBC and Dickie. The shooter had the gun illegally. South Carolina has a law that anyone CHARGED with a felony can not legally own or possess a firearm. He was charged with felony drug possession last February. The shooter didn’t buy it, reports are his dad bought it for him in April for his 21st birthday. Since that is also a felony, the dad is trying to change the scenario. It won’t be hard for law enforcement to track where and when the gun was purchased.
Dickie is obviously opposed to the second amendment. I wonder if he has armed body guards? If only one person in the church had a concealed carry gun, nine people wouldn’t be dead. If gun control laws worked, Chicago would be the safest city in America.
Criminals don’t obey laws. But law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves have to jump through hoops for the right to it. Remember the Steve Vogel comments about banks and concealed carry being a bad idea? The extremely stupid media thinks somebody who got the training and paid money for a permit is suddenly going to turn into a criminal just for walking armed into a bank!
WJBC will be playing Dickie’s thoughts over and over. Anyone listening to that garbage will believe it instead of getting the facts themselves.
Low information media is one of the biggest threat to the country. Bloomington Normal has both WJBC and the Pantagraph spewing garbage.
Do your own research. Cancel the Pantagraph. Then change the station to something other than WJBC. (I suggest Cities 92.9)
Start your research here: http://politistick.com/dana-loesch-blows-left-gun-control-narrative-out-of-the-water-with-this-breaking-news/
Email the WJBC newsroom, not that they will care. You might want to ask them to credit me when they steal stories from my site too.
I stopped a long time ago listening to this crappy station
Gun control is people control period. Funny thing is that when you call a cop, how many of them show up without a gun? Besides the fact that they are almost always too late, I would prefer to just have the opportunity to protect myself. Fact is that my life depends upon the ability for me to defend myself and I prefer a firearm to increase my chances of survival. I think that he rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” fully supports the 2nd Amendment which clearly states, “shall not be infringed.”
Did you know that crime is down everywhere concealed carry is encouraged? No Wild West because carriers are trained to know shooting is a last resort. I could post a lot of stories where lives were saved by a good guy with a gun!
I am very aware of the value of the 2nd Amendment and all that it entails.
Other than their coverage of ISU/IWU sports, WJBC has been dead to me for years.
Dylan’s dad should be charged with a felony. I am not up on the gun application process since I sold them
in college at Walmart (2003). Does it ask on the app if the gun is a gift or for the applicant? Is it a federal offense to lie about who you are buying a gun for? I could see requiring someone under a certain age requiring a guardian name on the app. Is there any law requiring a gun owner to surrender their gun after being charged with a violent crime or being charged with driving under the influence or drug pocession? I also question the types of guns that are available. I can see handguns, shotguns and bolt actio rifles. Semi or fully automatic weapons should not be possesed. I think it puts law enforcement in danger. All things put in perspective something needs to be done and I don’t want to go back to the Old West.
Forgive me Diane, but could you please indulge me if I hog a bit of comment space?
————————————————————————————————–
“Dylan’s dad should be charged with a felony”
Don’t worry. If he talked to a fed without a lawyer, the odds are about 100% that he probably will be. My bet is a conspiracy and/or an obstruction charge (and the feds just luuuuuuuuuvvvvvv low hanging fruit like that)
————————————————————————————————–
“Is it a federal offense to lie about who you are buying a gun for?”
From the federal form:
“Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.”
Lying in this case will get you charged with a felony under the Gun Control Act.
That being said, you can still actually gift the gun, but the person receiving it had better not have given you cash for it – that would be a straw-man purchase, and will land you in prison.
Personally, I believe that people who violate this law should be flogged to within an inch of their lives. If you want to stay out of prison, use an FFL to SELL the weapon as well.
————————————————————————————————–
“I could see requiring someone under a certain age requiring a guardian name on the app”
Sheesh…for love of…! Get real! Children cannot buy weapons.
If the attempted transfer is bona fide (through a person possessing an FFL) then:
“Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21”
and,
“Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18” per 9.18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1). This is irrelevant in the so-called Republic of Illinois, as minimums for purchasing or possession of weapons or ammunition is 21.
For private non FFL transfers made in Illinois, the seller is required to verify the validity of the FOID card of the buyer, AND is required to keep a record of that transfer for 10 years. As for FFL holders, I know several of them and they won’t even shake your hand without an FOID card.
————————————————————————————————–
“Is there any law requiring a gun owner to surrender their gun after being charged with a violent crime or being charged with driving under the influence or drug procession (sic)?”
Was the violation a felony? Then of course they lose the right to possess a weapon.
Also, in Illinois, a FOID card can be revoked for various reasons such as juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, intellectual or mental disabilities, etc. Any time spent in a residential or court ordered treatment center within the last five years would disqualify a person from getting an FOID card (and remember, FOID cards are required for EVERY weapons transfer in the great State of Illinois)
————————————————————————————————–
I haven’t even really scratched the surface of gun laws on a federal or state level, but I hope that by enabling your laziness to do any actual research on your own (Google is your friend), I might have impressed upon you that there are more than enough gun laws to go around.
————————————————————————————————–
” I can see handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles. Semi or fully automatic weapons should not be possessed”
Dude. Do you even understand why the Second Amendment exists?
It wasn’t written so I could pack away Bambi in the freezer. It wasn’t written so I could yee-haw while shooting dead Budweiser’s on a fence. It was written so that I would have the right to possess a weapon that would be on par with one which might be used against me by enemies – foreign OR domestic. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that an army could never be assembled that ‘the people’ could not repel (I used quotes around ‘the people’ because the Second Amendment specifically grants those rights TO ‘the people’. Not the state. Not the militias – the PEOPLE).
That means if an ordinary soldier possesses a sidearm, I want one. If he possesses a rifle, I want one. When they start issuing phaser rifles, I’ll be hooking up with one of those too.
The most likely response in your mind at this moment is ‘Gent, what chance do you really think you have against an army with helicopters and drones, etc., etc.?’.
Individually…None. But against ‘the People’, they wouldn’t have a chance, and they know it. Let me illustrate my point. In Pennsylvania alone, there are a million seasoned rifleman who apply for licenses to pack Bambi’s in their fridges every year.
A MILLION!
Try as you might, you couldn’t even muster two million soldiers and law enforcement officers in the entire country. Three percent of the population (a realistic estimation of the number of men and women who would actually have the nerve to repel such a force against the people) would put down that nonsense in a hurry. We also have 300 million weapons.
This is pretty much a moot point however. One of the reasons I love this site and admire Diane so much for is because she points out that an army isn’t necessary to subjugate the people.
It only takes 275 people. 218 Representatives and 51 Senators to pass a law; one President to sign the damned thing, and five Supreme Court justices to uphold it.
Poof! No phaser rifle for Gent.
Reduced to a more local scope, it take five votes to say Fistbump can’t speak at the Council meetings during citizens comments anymore because he doesn’t say anything. Alton Franklin won’t be able to make any comment for two months because he insulted the council last week. Donna won’t be able to speak because you can’t just go around pointing out things the council doesn’t want to talk about.
Poor kid. You’re a frog getting boiled slowly and you don’t even know it. Of course, that’s the point of boiling frogs slowly.
————————————————————————————————–
As for this little blurb of a thought:
“All things put in perspective something needs to be done and I don’t want to go back to the Old West.”
This is nonsensical hyperbole from somebody who obviously believes that movie westerns were factual depictions of reality. The truth is that life in the ‘old west’ was actually pretty peaceful BECAUSE people carried weapons to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their property.
————————————————————————————————–
There are a lot of things wrong with what happened in SC, but focusing on guns (or the flag, for pete’s sake) is just a distraction.
Stop buying into it.
A few comments Gent:
1. I noticed my error in asking the question about underage people possessing firearms. I was just wondering if you could gift one since there are kids who hunt and have to specify that on the app
2. So what is your definition of peaceful? If it was that peaceful was it because of guns or the thinking of the citizens? Do you go by the murder rate or number of murders?
3. Have you considered that the 2nd amendment was circumstantial?
4. Thank you answering my questions. If figured Google would send me in million places when it is quicker to ask knowledgable people.
2nd amendment was intentional! The framers knew history. They demanded people have the right to defend themselves!
Peacefulness Mike? In regards to your question I get some peace of mind knowing that if a bigger more powerful person than myself attempts to threaten me or my life then I have some form of defense that represents an equalizer. Although I am a very peaceful person, there are many people out there that are not and if they think they can run over you, they will.
There are some evil people in the world unfortunately so yeah I like having the peace of mind that I can protect myself and my family by knowing when and how to use a firearm. Hopefully that need will never arise. A main reason that law enforcement is effective is that they carry a handgun or two, a taser, and have a shot gun and/or an assault rifle in their car. The cops are feared literally because they feel threatened they basically have a license to kill by whatever means of which most use a firearm. Without a firearm, what should they do? Throw donuts?
I think there are some circumstantial aspects. There was distrust of the government at the time. People largely resisted a government run police force. So people out of necessity armed themselves. There was not much of a regular military.
All I am asking is for people on both sides to have the conversation. Doesn’t mean we need to change anything but perhaps we get a better idea of what we need so everything feels safe. There was compromise and debate in the creation of constitution. But are people ready to make hard choices and even harder sacrifices?
Guns rights weren’t because of the times. Government is suppose to protect freedom and liberty. When they don’t it is our right and responsibility to defend it ourselves. Ever heard “from time to time the blood of patriots must be shed”? Google it.
Are you advocating through grass roots political action or something else? I agree with making our voices heard. The quote can be taken the wrong way. Jefferson sure evolved. The guy was a philosopher.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/273800
Lets first try an article 5 convention
You know Mike, I’ve got to hand it to you. That was a pretty level headed response considering the snarkiness of my post, so I tip my hat to you and I’ll even apologize for the snarkiness.
Regarding your second query, I sense you doubt the veracity of my claim regarding the ‘wild west’. All I can say is that you should look into it for yourself. When you do, you’ll realize that journalism of the day was not immune to sensationalism or even the fabrication of facts.
As for your third query, I can assure you that it was not circumstantial. The First Amendment has a lot of nice words about your freedom to believe what you want and to practice what your believe, to speak, to write, and to assemble peacefully at will, and to petition your government to seek remedies to grievances. The Second Amendment serves as the backstop of these rights. It is what gives ‘the people’ their teeth. Without it, it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine a government that tells you to shut up and pound sand. The anti-federalist were keenly aware of this reality, which is why they insisted on it to ensure the ratification of the Constitution by the states.
Why the insistence? Because there isn’t a single word in the Constitution regarding the rights of the individual citizens. None of the ideals which Jefferson articulated in the Declaration of Independence regarding individual liberties are to be found anywhere in the document.
I also feel compelled to protest a certain viewpoint which seems rather pervasive in commentaries which I have read regarding the Second Amendment (or any other, for that matter), which is that it is an anachronism, or worse – that it does not carry the same force and weight of the document it amends. The Constitution is a compact; a contractual obligation between the States to create an apparatus (a federal government) to serve their needs collectively. It lays out in great detail how this apparatus is to operate. Any amendments to the document are no less relevant or important as the original document itself. Violations of an amendment are no less serious than a violation of the document itself. I hope this might explain why some people get irritated when attempts are made to tweak amendments, their meanings, or their purpose.
Personally, I am resigned to the idea that the document can be fixed, or that well intentioned people can restore our rights and liberties. The Constitution has fatal flaws within it, and subsequent amendments have done nothing but ensure that the federal apparatus, designed to serve the sovereign republics of each state, lords over all fifty at will.
Oh well.
Peace be with you.
WJBC-Willingly Juxtaposing Bloomington’s Crisis, NO, quit listening to that station 20 years ago, THEY STILL around? Speaking of BAD SERVICE. ANYBODY else NOT get their Sunday paragraph? Just back from Meijer and several folks didn’t get theirs, even the greeter guy from Lk Blt.
As for the “Old West” comments above. Being a historian of the “Old West” they had a LOT less powder in their loads then, so, less damage/penetration. More “scrapes” and “grazes” and the ONLY idiots who did the gun toting and USING were idiots who HAD it coming, and they usually met up with a more SOBER person, with a bad outcome for them. If you go BACK to the 49 Gold Rush, there WERE NO cops/lawmen in the placers in 49, and the miners settled matters themselves, it wasn’t UNTIL the cops/judges/lawyers (i.e.:moneymakers) showed up that things got out of hand.
My father in law did the concealed carry class. He said a lawyer came in and talked to them about gun law. He told them flat out that you never rush to the scene if you hear gun shots. You get away as fast as possible. I forget the term that was used but if you move toward a shooting you can be charged with a felony and will most likely do jail time. Definitely no wild Wild West. Those we conceal carry know they have a duty to act responsibly if for no other reason than to prove all the naysayers wrong.
A lot of the class dwells on NOT shooting!