Previous Post
Next Post

Tim Benz courtesy

Pittsburgh’s 105.9 The X morning drive host Tim Benz walked out of the studio during his imaginatively named X Morning Show Friday. What could have caused the radio jock to abandon his mic mid-broadcast? Did the station’s program director dictate a Barry Manilow marathon? No, nothing quite that unsettling. Instead, Benz bailed because of the, um, negative feedback he was getting from his listeners as a result of the anti-gun views he’d been spewing over the western Pennsylvania airwaves . . .

We get the play-by-play from

Tim Benz, co-host of the Morning Show on alternative rock radio station 105.9 The X, left the air Friday after arguing with listeners about his support of stricter gun laws.

“There was a flare-up about gun control on the show, which included a good deal of flashback against the station,” Benz said. “I wasn’t able to walk away from the fight … (so) I decided to step away from the Morning Show.”

The argument stemmed from a Pittsburgh gun shop’s recent giveaway of hundreds of rounds of ammunition, high-capacity magazines and an AR-15 military-style rifle on its Facebook page.

Benz’s audience apparently wasn’t tuning in to get harangued about the evils of guns while fighting morning traffic on their way to work. Which probably accounts for the deluge of complaints called into the station and posted on the station’s MyFace page. But according to the now-former host, it was all just a failure to communicate.

Benz concedes he is passionate about the issue of gun control. He said his polarizing opinions seem to be misunderstood.

“It’s a personal battle that I may have waged on the airwaves too often for the format. It’s a topic I feel passionately about,” he said. “And that passion has gotten in the way of doing the show in the manner in which it should be done.”

The kerfuffle’s no mystery to Erik Lowry, though. He’s the owner of the gun store, Pittsburgh Tactical Firearms, that was giving away the ballistic gift bag that sparked Benz’s on-air tirade.

“When you’re a morning show host in a town of blue-collar workers who love their guns and the Second Amendment, you’re going to (anger) a lot of people,” he said.

We’re sure Benz will have no trouble finding gainful employment in another field that’s much more accommodating of his civilian disarmament advocacy and takes advantage of his gift of gab. Perhaps there’s a run for Congress is in his future.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Indeed, Philly is of little use to us.

      I find it funny a radio host would think pro-gun control talk would go over well in SW PA.

      • Just cut off Northeast Philly and keep that, we’re a bit better here in the Northeast than the rest of Philly, the rest of Philly can sink into the river for all I care.

    • No deal. We already have two wretched hives in NJ, Newark and Cambden. For crying out loud, we have a BB parked in Cambden just in case things get too out of hand.

    • I’d love to just give the cities to themselves. Let the urbanites create their magical utopias and leave the rest of the country (and really, the rest of the world) the heck alone.

      Maybe instead of 50 states we should be 49 states, 1 people’s communist republic (california) and 125 or so utopian dream lands.

    • Hey, there are a lot of liberty loving gun owners in Philly, and I will personally not give Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell to the likes of NJ, lol, we need an influx of liberty oriented gunowners in Philly, and gun shops that have fair prices, lol.

      • Tanner’s up in Warminester, Quinbys near the Czestochowa Shrine near Doylestown and Delia’s in NE Philly. These shops tend to have the best prices in and around Philadelphia.

  1. He jagged around now he’s gotta redd up and get a new johb awhile.

    Can’t be doing this in PA. ‘Shall not be questioned.’

  2. Makes me proud to live in my adopted state of Pennsylvania. We shut down the sports show, now we’re making our love of liberty known to gun control blowhards on the air waves.

  3. Tim Benz “left” the station because he used the station’s facebook to harass and badmouth gunowners, even advocating for their death by drone.

    “Sorry to burst your bubble rich. I’m sure there is nothing you enjoy better than enjoying a good ole fashioned liberal conspiracy theory. But I dont run the facebook page. I did post the Fleury story and noticed your boyfriend Anthony taking a swipe at me. So I made the tragic mistake of reading on and caught your ramblings. To answer your question, I think Obama’s idea of flying drones over America is an awesome one…so long as the drone is targeting your house. If he blew you away he’d be doing all of us a favor. As for you Anthony, you calling me brainwashed is laughable and highly hypocritical. And thank you, sincerely, for the wusification line. You have put into text what I think is at the core of so many of these arguments…you equate owning a gun to being a tough guy. Ok tough guy. Cling on to your guns just like Obama said. Go ahead and keep proving his ignorant statement right. Grab your bushmaster and blow Bambi’s head off. Color me sufficiently intimidated by you manliness…oh, mighty gun toting bad ass.”

    • Exactly.
      I hope that the other yinzers who read this contact Casey and Toomey, who claim to be Pro 2A BUT, support the AWB and 10 round restrictions among everything else.

      How many shootings happen in a week around Pittsburgh? How many armed robberies? It’s not the legal gun owners committing the crimes. A lot of the media in Pittsburgh isn’t to gun friendly.

      • Casey is a lying sack of sh_t! He supports AWB 2.0 and mag caps (I’ve got the email from him to prove it). Vote his ass out of office!!!

        • Btw, here is part of the email I got from Bob Casey:

          “After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. “

  4. This is a question looking for an answer, not an argument looking for a fight.

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..” If it is, as some suggest, “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms,..” belongs as a right of each individual person. That being so, and as their declared purpose of this right, the possibility of a citizen taking up arms against a tyrannical government , or the “militia”? If this is so, why would the Framers deliberately draft an amendment that would put into question it’s authority, objectivity, and the purpose, that is necessary to the security of a free state?

    What then is necessary for the security of a free state? Is it, “A well regulated militia…”? Or, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Who controls the uncontrollable?

    • The framers of the consititution acknowledged that the greatest threat to liberty and freedom were gov’t itself. The crux of the constitution and bill of rights is about putting restrictions on the government. They believed that the risks associated with unparalleled individual freedom were well worth it.

    • One thing to keep in mind when reading anything written over two hundred years ago: language changes. At the time the constitution was written “well regulated” when connected to armies and soldiers was often used as a synonym for “well disciplined” – in other words they knew how to handle themselves on the field of battle, rather than “regulated” in the sense of rules and laws.

      As for “being necessary to the security of a free state” you need to keep in mind that when the bill of rights was passed we did not, and in fact weren’t supposed to have, a standing army. There was a great distrust of a standing army by many of the founding fathers, they considered a full-time military to be a threat to our liberty. It was the state militias that were supposed to provide for the majority of our security at the time.

      That being so, and as their declared purpose of this right, the possibility of a citizen taking up arms against a tyrannical government , or the “militia”? If this is so, why would the Framers deliberately draft an amendment that would put into question it’s authority, objectivity, and the purpose, that is necessary to the security of a free state?

      The thing is, and most people don’t really think about it, but that is exactly what the founding fathers just did. From the perspective of the British the American Revolution was completely illegal. The founding fathers were the “crazy separatists”. And their revolution was largely dependent on privately held arms.

      As to what their mindset was I think I’ll quote from the Declaration of Independence:

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
      That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      Also, a good website to check out sometime is

      It provides far more detail on the historical context of the second amendment than what I could get into here.

      • You know, given the focus of this site, we give a lot of attention to the Constitution, and we should, because it’s an important foundation for all that we are as a nation. But that said, the Constitution is at heart an administrative document, a dry blueprint that describes the form and function of the government. It contains no passion.

        For that, we have the Declaration of Independence. Every few months something will come up that will cause me to reread it — in this case, your comment — and every time I do, I am astonished, all over again, at the level of passion in that document, and at the sheer power contained in what, if you remove the “Indictment” section, is really very few words. Reading it literally gives me chills.

  5. i listen to that radio station, he was just another pro-disarmament talking head, also hes a crappy sports broadcaster. glad hes gone.

  6. I’m putting my money on Tim being fired than the politically correct term ‘resign’. Going after gun owners and paint them in a broad brush as evil and blood thirsty is idiotic. Learn your lesson well, Timmy.

  7. I’m quite sure there are any number of anti-2A media establishments where he could obtain gainful employment. I can see the headline now:

    “Radio host hounded out of his job by gun nuts”
    sub headline
    “Was in fear for his safety after threats”

  8. If the anti 2A people are against killing. Than why are their first words is to go kill people who are pro 2A. Just goes to show you how 2 faced they are.

  9. I live in Pittsburgh, but I don’t listen to 105.9. Screw that station–

    I’m not even going to bother talking about anything here though except..

    ..How in the hell have I never heard of this Store? I’ll be stopping in tomorrow though…

  10. what a p^ssy.

    I can understand piling up your shit and then standing behind your pile of shit.

    but to fling it and then run away when others cry foul is a perfect example of cowardice.

    moral of the story: when you create your pile of shit, at least have the intestinal fortitude and personal courage to stand behind it.

  11. I live in Pittsburgh and I listened to the X-Morning Show. I liked Tim Benz while disagreeing with his thoughts on gun control. I listened to him prior to joining the X on ESPN Radio. He was a sports guy “that got it”. That said, he alienated his core audience, and that has repercussions.

  12. “… a good deal of flashback against the station …” I think they mean “blowback” or “backlash”.

    Yeah, I added nothing to the discussion.

Comments are closed.