Trey Puts Gun Control in Perspective

If cloudy or blurry vision, halos or even faded colors, it could be cataracts. And France I care has your solution. Voted best cataracts surgeon by newspress and Naples Daily Newsreaders, Dr. Jonathan France and his expert team offer advanced lens options like panoptics, vividly and the light adjustable lens, giving patients clearer vision after surgery. Call 239-418-0999 today for your cataract evaluation. Financing via care credit makes it easy and affordable. Get ready for the season's greatest highlights and see fall more clearly with France I care. We've proclaimed this the official station of the Gulf of America, WFSX Estero, 92-5 Fox News. Right, all along. This is the drive with Tray Radel on 92-5 Fox News. Tray Radel, your host of the drive. So recently there was a story in the news about a man who used a fork, but to kill another man. And it's horrifying because we know that for so long, we've been pushing for common sense fork reform. And it's just disturbing that there are certain people in this country that don't get it. Okay, you know, forks are the problem. We know forks that have the usually foreprongs on them and they're all pretty sharp. And when you just look at it, you know that that is an object that is a weapon of war. The modified ones are even worse where they're larger, sometimes used like in a salad bowl. You've seen these right horrifying. And somehow we allow these to be on the streets in the common person's hand. These weapons of war, these modified forks, their assault forks is what they are. Yeah, it's just going to say that the barbecue growlands are these huge large assault forks. And that should be relecated strictly to the battlefield. Yes. That needs to be relegated only to professionals who have gone through extensive training. I mean, just waving that thing around on a Sunday when you're trying to cook out is dangerous. And this brings up this factor. We need more common sense forks reform for these objects out there that could kill people. Okay, you look at it, you know, forks, prongs, sharp, dangerous. You look at the larger ones, used it salad bowls, even more dangerous. And then as Ian has brought into this conversation perhaps the scariest, the longest, the sharpest, and the most lethal the fork used around the grill while barbecuing. And so I think that the next step in common sense fork reform here is to be able to sue the manufacturers of forks. Because let's face it, that man that I described to have killed a few weeks ago, he'd be alive today. If we only had common sense forks reform and that family, that poor victim, okay, that man who lost his life, okay, to a fork, this, I don't even know how we put up with that man lost his life to a fork. And we should be able to sue, and that family is, that family is going to sue the manufacturer of that fork. Because it's clearly the fork that's its issue here. The fact that they have these weapons of war in the hands of people at restaurants, at their homes, in schools where the children are. And you allow these forks to just be all around and you can end up with that kids. And a lot of people now are advocates for locking silverware drawers all over the country. I think so, I think that this action multi-pronged process here, first of all, pun intended. There are ones that can, no, un-intended. We just broke character by the way. We just broke character right now. Oh, that's good. Yeah. Bro character. You didn't mean to say that, that's pretty funny. I did not. No, the multi-prong approach. If it was a pun intended, it would have been a four-prong approach with very sharp focused goal. Maybe you'd better take another stab at it. For the record, everybody, there's nobody killed by a fork. I don't know, I just made that up. It's obviously for a point here. Now we need responsible journalism. Yeah. If we, this, try Raid will put now more misinformation. That's what it is. You just go ask, to him overwice, try Raid with the misinformation on fork deaths. What is next? You're going to start speculating on who might run for Congress? How dare you? Exaggerated zero into one. All right. So we broke character. I'm going to go ahead and bring you the real story here. So the analogy, what we're talking about here, are fists. And we eat common sense fist reform. You know, you can pimp slap somebody with an open hand. Okay, acceptable. But it's really fists that we're worried about. And if you put your fingers towards your palm, you clench that fist. Now that is an assault fist. And what we need to do is be able to have common sense fist reform. Okay. All right. We've gone way too far with this. Here's the deal. We're going to go right back to politics. State of Virginia. State of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger gets elected. Governor there. As a Democrat legislature. What do they do? They redistricted. And we won over that story yesterday. I'm going to bring up the speed. They all, Abigail runs on. I'm a moderate. Go, send wipes out all the Republicans. And then begins to pass crazy legislation. Again, for the record, though, the good news is that the Virginia legislature and their redrawing of the maps, not having, it's not going to happen. Not happening. Their own state Supreme Court said, sorry, you screwed up violated too many rules. You're done. But you know what they have passed? A law in Virginia to allow people to sue gun manufacturers. And the ridiculous analogy of forks. I don't think it's ridiculous. How is it different? And if you're going to tell me that the gun is way more dangerous, I would say really, does the gun fire itself? Does the fork stab someone by itself? What these are inanimate objects that are being used in, let's say, bad ways occasionally. For the record, the overwhelming number of fork users are using forks for legal reasons. You know, eating their food. What else is a fork for? There's many responsible fork users out there. And I don't think any member of the NFA, the National Fork Association, has ever used a fork in a bad way and been arrested for that. It's your right to bear forks. So the fork owners are overwhelmingly responsible with their forks, fork and A. Mother, my mother, fork are of course they are. Gun owners also, overwhelmingly, they either never discharge them in their lives, certainly against another human being, in the terms of protection or home, whatever, and they have them. Now, what's the difference? Again, inanimate objects that can be used in bad ways. And I've never understood the premise of this that you're going to allow a manufacturer to be sued. And let's. Like, one of the things to remember here, when you do talk about guns in any way, excuse me, even like a Republican listening right now, is you'll elicit emotion. Emotion of like, "Oh, man, you know, these things can be bad." Gun manufacturers put out guns for people to be able to use them in responsible ways to protect themselves. Should they ever need it or to hunt? Now, or to shoot at the gun range, whatever. You know, when you begin looking at the amount of deaths in automobiles every year, what about massive lawsuits against the gun? the automobile manufacturer. Now, you could probably, if you're a lawyer, you've already come up with a million and one ways of, yes, I can absolutely sue the automobile manufacturer for things like the fault of the car this or that. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a human being getting behind the wheel and utilizing it for a very specific purpose, like someone picking up a gun and utilizing it for a very specific purpose. Go to bed. How do you sue based on that premise? Let me go through this and then I'll get back to what I think is a great contrarian argument to all of this. First of all, the firearm industry can be sued now in the state of Virginia and manufacturers can be held liable if someone utilizes the guns in a wrong way and they can prove that the manufacturer and their actions were negligent in selling or distributing firearms, leading to public harm. By the way, this is where it gets a little screwy too. We're talking about manufacturers that guns are purchased by stores in bulk and then they could be sold and resold. How do you do that chain of command of the purchases? Legislation is designed. Here's ultimately what the political purpose of this is in Virginia designed to allow victims and governments to sue gun makers because they have not prevented sales to individuals showing signs of intending violence. Good look with that. That first of all violates the first amendment and second amendment pretty much right off the bat. You're going to judge that. Imagine the distraught woman whose husband or boyfriend is pummeling the hell out of her going to purchase something to protect her. You think that she's going to appear in the right state of mind? Where do you begin and end with the questions there and how do you judge whether or not after perhaps she even protected herself that the manufacturer is guilty and held liable for any of this. What is what the NRA is saying, not the NFA who protects foregoers, that it unfairly expands liability for lawful firearm businesses. You're there, you're selling and now you're allowing everybody to get sued. The clear political point of this is to allow for a lawsuit after law suit to stifle purchases to stifle any people buying the product and ultimately to drive them to go out of business. That is the goal. Here's what I propose. Throughout the United States, we have seen some pretty horrific things happen when it comes to men and women being murdered by DA's that just let people with extensive criminal records out. Their story after story in New York City of somebody who gets locked up and let go and the next day or that night they're out on the streets of the harm someone else. There is one of the most horrific stories in the last few years that just breaks my heart. I hate seeing even if the video frames of a pop-up that poor girl in the Charlotte train where the black man who specifically stated I got the white girl murdered that poor immigrant from Ukraine who came to the United States for a better life, a safer life and all she was doing was sitting on a train and that guy murdered her in front of everyone. That guy had an extensive criminal record but because he was in Charlotte where they got a bunch of freaking liberals running the place was let out. You're good to go. You're fine even though you've been in contact with law 16 different times and then you look at what happened right here in Fort Myers. That poor woman working at a gas station one day goes out to tell someone to stop bashing her car and that Haitian illegal alien bashed her head and murdered her. That guy had been in contact with law enforcement federal during Biden in and out of courts during Biden and with liberal DA's under Trump the way that he had been all over making contact here in there and because of Biden's laws the guy's just roaming around free and then you start looking at if you want to take it even a step further Trump gets in and is attempting all over the country to rid our country of these violent illegal aliens residing in the country and then what do you get at every turn Donald Trump is prevented from doing so with lawsuit after lawsuit and then violent protests after violent protests against ice harming ice members trying to kill ice members and he cannot have the type of success that he wanted. So you look at all these criminals that have been in contact with law enforcement that should have been in prison and I say let's sue them. Sue the dees how about the judges how about the judges judges that we have again the absurd stories over the last several years where you've got judges who will like state their political beliefs out loud of you know we're living on stolen land and we cannot hold this illegal alien crazy stuff like that one judge in Wisconsin who tried to literally assist and escape of illegal aliens in her own courtroom when you've got judges that allow for violent criminals to take back to the streets and commit and they commit another crime how can we not allow us to sue the judges if you're allowed to sue the gun manufacturers because there's a very big difference in what we're talking about here and it's pretty simple these are human beings making decisions that should be accountable for their decisions not an inanimate object that a human being picked up and decided to use in a deliberate way. I don't know the fault in that argument I think that if you're going to allow for lawsuits against manufacturers of an inanimate object it can't do anything without the assistance of a human being if you're going to allow for that first of all actually before I even get back to dees and judges like if you work off of that premise do you know the amount of lawsuits that you could just absolutely flood the courts with on on anything at all now you get it we're a litigious society anybody could sue for anything but what's happening here in Virginia is these are very deliberate laws done for very specific reasons to put gun manufacturers out of business all while making their political point all for again an object that cannot do harm unless a human being picks it up and utilizes it. If you go back over to the side of hey let's be able to sue dees let's go and be able to sue judges what you're talking about there is actual evidence of a person making these decisions just like by the way you can sue someone you can either go someone after someone who's discharged a weapon utilize it anyway in a criminal way murder but also civil lawsuits someone went they shot this they already held responsible criminally but now you got a family who who you know my son got hit the leg or whatever I'm doing lawsuits a civil lawsuit as well you do all that against the individual that discharged the weapon because you know what was happening it's the person it's intent and I say the same damn thing for dees and judges if you go and allow a violent criminal to go back on the streets after committing their violent atrocities in society then the judges and dees should be sued down and back. We're going to take a break I'm cherry-rattle this is drive. I will tell you you're going to get so tired of winning and when you do just punch up southwest Florida's most beautiful country station it's Trump country 937. Country music chosen by a winner me for the winners of Southwest Florida Trump country 937 we're making country great again if you are white and commit a murder you your race will be mentioned if you are black and commit a murder a very small chance that your race will be mentioned. What we have now are statistics that go from roughly 2018 and then by the way we get into 2020 which is post George Floyd to today and like this is one of these things where the stats just affirm what you already know that the media picks and chooses to race bait and in fact the way that they do this they do this under a horrific sort of philosophy here. There is a journalist who became an activist Wesley Loury who says that we have to prioritize racial justice coverage and what you do in racial justice coverage is you put what he calls moral clarity over objectivity. So in other words you put your opinion over the truth. That's exactly what that is. This is a fancy words for you should insert your opinion not the truth. Don't use facts don't use statistics nothing like that. Use moral clarity over objectivity. So the Washington Free Beacon did this analysis and you know we've got all of the sort of examples that you and I know the the man who plowed over white a black lives matter activist who plowed over people during a Christmas parade in Waxchall, Wisconsin. Frank James that was the guy on the New York City a subway who is a black nationalist and outspoken racist against whites, Jews and Hispanics who shot up people there on the subway and when you see these two cases alone their races are not mentioned anywhere. You're not even gonna see a mug shot. So here are some stats in 2020. There were 876 white on black homicides and 1,900 black on white homicides yet when you look at the coverage of this it's overwhelmingly whites committing homicides and killing and assaulting black people. So again this is over a several year period that goes from before George Floyd to after and the data that they've got in are literally thousands of articles on homicides from six major papers, the Chicago Trib, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Philadelphia, Inquire, San Francisco, Chronicle, Minneapolis's Star Tribune, all of which by the way when they did this story and just laid out the statistics now one single representative from any one of those newspapers would respond to the questions from the Washington Free Beacon. So the data shows this alarming trend. The editorial choices as the Washington Free Beacon rights are part and parcel with racial reckoning that swept newsrooms in the wake of Floyd's murder were journalists dramatically overhauled their crime coverage to emphasize the view that the criminal justice system is racist at the root. It has nothing to do with the offenders. It's the system which by the way is very typical sort of progressive radical way of thinking here which is let's blame something that is either arbitrary or just has this catch all meaning the system the man we're gonna blame the man instead of individuals actions or responsibilities. So in this they to measure the choices they identified the race of the offender in 900 stories whereas name but not race was mentioned first by looking at the race of people with the same name and the census data and then hand confirming race based on mug shots or other images published in local news stories. And so in doing this it gives an estimate of how journalists highlight an offender's race or don't. The skew white offenders race mentioned one out of every four articles. So what is it with blacks in Hispanics? One out of your white one out of four mentions your race. One in 17 about a black offender. One again one out of four if you're white one out of 17 and then by the way one out of 33 with the Hispanic offender. Now I'm assuming that with the Hispanic part that maybe there's a component like well his last name was insert last name Hernandez. Hernandez whatever it may be. But the the effect they write is in part driven by handful of major news stories involving white perpetrators. Although the attention paid to these stories is also an editorial choice. Think Kyle Ritt now. And in this the white offenders they're mentioned over and over two to three times the rate of which black offenders are mentioned. Middle East offenders were labeled as Asian in this analysis labeling them as white results and only a small change by the way. The disparity wide and following George Floyd's murder. So again we get into the before and after before May of 2020 papers were roughly twice as likely to mention the race of a white 13% of stories versus a black perpetrator only 7% of stories. May of 2020 the numbers were 28% and 4% a ratio of seven to one. Again that increases massive. It increases massively for whites that we're going to mention your race if you're white. The increase is huge and there's a decrease with black offenders. They even omit the above mentioned stories. Paper still mentioned race and 23% of the stories about white killers post Floyd. Six to one ratio. In this newspapers across the country post George Floyd. Us they what they ended up doing is they overhauled their language. Substituting phrases for felon to a formerly incarcerated person. And this is where the pointer institute which by the way is based here in Florida said that there's an inextricable link between reporting on crime race and racism. Look chicken and egg here. I mean when you get back into oh sorry let me just finish one other thing too. Associated press also amended its style to discourage the word a riot because the word riot indicates racist connotations. So when you prioritize racial justice over this it goes back to where I started where the activists in the industry say we want moral clarity over objectivity. Objectivity means truth. Fact images statistics. And if you report that and someone is racist against all whatever insert then it's it's the person who's the problem. What you are doing is withholding truth from the American people for an agenda. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I wanted to share with you. These are the stats and they cannot be disputed and the way that the media does this it goes to show exactly what their agenda is in the truth no longer matters. We'll be right back to this. 92 5 Fox News. Tray Raidell your whole stuff is right. With the new districts that have been drawn here in Florida I want to just share with you this kind of some interesting info on the Democrats how they're contending but also get into the lawsuit against the governor of Sanctus and our Republican legislature on these new districts. So you really only have two members of Congress two Democrats that are safe. That's it. Everything else gets a little questionable because of who might shift here or there. And look I'm just gonna give you a real general descriptions here because I mean I don't I I wouldn't be able to like look at every single map and say oh that's that's where this congressman is that's where this person is. But the two that are safe would be Darren Soto who's in a very Democratic leaning district very big Hispanic population where I'm sorry I started with a wrong one. He's the one being split. He's he gets split. The safe guy is Maxwell Frost. Maxwell Frost very young very far left Democrat who is in central Florida there. His current district does not get all that mashed up. It's relatively safe. So by the way let me just go right there quickly. So Soto Maxwell Frost, Kathy Kaster, Lois Frankl, Jared Moscow, it's Fred Rico Wilson, Debbie Washington, it's Schultz, like I've just thrown out Democrat names that I would bet you know some of them. I think that it's interesting. I don't know how deliberate this was, but they pick, I mean, there's very obviously a lot of picking and choosing on which district you're really going to attack and divvy up and try to shape more Republican. Now, first and foremost, the decisions to do that are based on number one, how Republican can we get? That's it. That's number one. But what you end up getting into though as well is who can we really screw with? And I think Debbie Washington Schultz and Maxwell Frost represent each end. They went after Debbie Washington Schultz hard. She and I'll recap some of this. She's kind of in between where the hell she's going to run. If she remains in the area that she lives in and has represented for several years, she's running in a Republican district. Okay? So she's got tough decisions. She's going to go to another district. She's going to go to one that's all black, one that's more Jewish. We don't know. Let me so Debbie Washington Schultz, very powerful Democrat ran the DNC. They went at her hard. Maxwell Frost, the furthest left you could imagine. He's further left in Debbie Washington Schultz. Washington Schultz I've told you I've known her for many years. I've had talked to her in a long time, but I did I absolutely ever respect for her. Well, I may radically disagree with loads of her positions. You get you she's very honest and at times in a brutal way. And that said, I've had conversations with her too on some areas of like foreign policy, even some domestic policy, where I'm like, damn Debbie, that's better watch out. You're going to get labeled at that time tea party here. Now it'd be mega. I think she's slapped me if I said that. So Maxwell Frost, he's good. He's good to go. And I'm looking and I'm like, you know what? This is a defund the police guy, defund ICE, no borders. We're all on stolen land. That my friends is the kind of crazy you want to stay in the Democratic Party. Debbie Washington Schultz again, as I do, regardless of how you feel about her and emotions that may come up the craziest thing she said this and that again, Wasserman Schultz at times can be pragmatic. She get things done very powerful and and compared to Maxwell Frost normal. Think about that. Like think about how how abnormal Maxwell Frost has got to be to say they're Wasserman Schultz. Yeah, you know what? She's normal. And I think that there was absolute intent behind that. So the other things now that you begin looking at Kathy Kaster, longtime congresswoman out of a Tampa. She is going to have to defend her seat. That's that's going to be its Republican leaning. She's got a big powerful name. The question is is how powerful are Democrats in that district? Do they come out and outnumber Republicans? That's that might still even be especially in this midterm, which is tough for Republicans, a purple seat. Then you've got this basically lowest frankly, you got Jared Mosquitz. And I'm going to go to Debbie Washington Schultz again in these last two examples. You have a large Jewish population in South Florida. All three that I've just named or Jewish and they lock up that vote, even though there has been a percentage of the Jewish community that has shifted right, a lot are still going to vote with one of those three who could be who could run against each other. None of them want that. I mean, imagine this, imagine a Greg Stuby rock solid conservative running against Byron Donald's rock solid conservative. That would suck. You got Byron versus Stuby through Mario Diaz ballart into the mix. And when you get into a three way race or more, you have no idea who's going to win. Many people that are listening right now, maybe like, Oh, Mario is a liberal in that. Well, here's what happens. The two conservatives eat each other alive and then somebody comes through the middle. These are all possibilities, but it's just ugly and nasty to run in a race like that of which by the way, all three of those people, Jared, Debbie, Lois all known each other for many, many years have personal relationships. And then you get thrown in to run against each other. That would suck. So I then wrap up with one of the most devious components to this. That again, involves Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So you may recall this a shirtless McCormick woman, a black congresswoman in South Florida. She went and just absolutely stole millions of dollars from was a FEMA or COVID or whatever the hell she did. That'd make a damn difference. She raped you. The taxpayer raped me. The taxpayer. And total idiot about it like thought that because it's like, she's like, Oh, I'm just going to form a bunch of LLCs in different states and no one will ever track the money. Are you an idiot? I got all this money coming in to a company and probably coming taxpayer dollars by the millions. We're going to help everybody. And they just sent it to without even like trying to do go between stuff. Or we're just going to put this into an LLC in Illinois. All this one here and put it in a LLC. I think they picked all blue states. I think they were going to get away with it. They couldn't even laundry it right. No, no, no, dude. So she's gone. Okay, she got and died and she ended up resigning. That is the district. Gen Xers. You may recognize the name to live crew. The very provocative band hip-hop band from the late 80s, early 90s. They were headed up by Uncle Luke. And that guy's Luther Campbell. He's running for Congress in that district along with other black candidates. And he's expressed concern about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And it's really interesting. You know, we're closed primary. So only Democrats can vote, only Republicans vote in their primaries. The theory is is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has, it raises millions of dollars, who has huge name ID. Again, headed up the DNC at one point, goes into the black district. The black candidates all divide each other up. And she comes in with just enough solid name ID and brand to win. And they're pissed. And that, that is where I wrap up this this evening to leave you again with this concept of fair districts. That's what is happening. That's what the lawsuits are about. 2010, we passed Constitutional Amendment to say, congressional district should be fair districts. No one knows what that means. Nobody understands is that based on gender. Is it based on race? Is it based on party? Is it based on NPAs? Is it based on amount of registered voters? You get the point here. And so whereas Democrats are like, we want a gerrymander based on race. And we only want someone who is black to win the black congressional district. It again brings up what the hell are fair districts. But that is the lawsuit that will challenge this. And we'll see if it holds in court. We have to not take a break, take a long break again before we come back tomorrow. Next up is Mark Levin for Ian and Katrina. I'm Troy Rado. That was addressing 92 five Fox News.