On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Monday, host Mark Levin slammed the media gun control narrative, suggesting that the press would be “indignant,” “furious” if the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press were treated the same way that gun control and the Second Amendment are treated.
“We are so quick to accept the narrative that is imposed upon us,” stated Mark Levin. “Now we have kids marching and kids insisting on gun control, and the media exploiting the kids to advance an agenda. The media would never report this way if it came to the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. They’d be indignant. They’d be furious. Certain liberties matter and certain liberties don’t.”
Levin’s comments came after media reacted to the Florida school shooting by parading five “grieving Parkland students” around on the Sunday talk shows. “Two newly minted gun control activists from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida are defending the FBI, while demanding that the NRA ‘child murderers’ dismantle and disband,” according to CNSNews.com.
Below is a transcript of Levin’s remarks from his show Monday:
“Okay, I know I’m always swimming against the tide, but you know, every day as I sit behind this microphone I see more and more of our liberty just slipping away. And now there is a national outcry to steal more of it.
“And so, I want to put it to the gun controllers out there: Exactly what kind of federal law would have stopped this mass murderer?
“The FBI didn’t stop him, despite twice being warned about him. Local law enforcement didn’t stop him, despite a score of times going to his house. Now we learn that a social worker who interviewed him said that he was a low-level threat.
“So we’ve talked the last several days, the end of last week, about the ideas that I have and you have in terms of securing the schools the way the Israelis do against the Palestinian terrorists, the way they secure their country with a wall. But we apparently, we don’t have the will to do it. Instead, we’re going to continue down the progressive path where liberty is meaningless.
“So, I want to know, in this specific case, what kind of a federal gun control law would have stopped this killer?
“Again, we already know the history: a bail bondsman warned the FBI, and they said, ‘Well, we couldn’t find him. We thought maybe he was using a false name.’ When, in fact, the guy used his real name. What a ridiculous response.
“And we know on January 5, the FBI was specifically contacted on their hotline, told by somebody who knew this guy – not just some acquaintance – and warned what he was capable of, what he was talking about, and they failed in their so-call protocol.
“Nobody told the school, to my knowledge, which should have beefed up security. All schools should beef up security in a serious way.
“‘More vetting.’ How can you vet this guy more than he was vetted? He was known. He made threats. ‘More vetting’ of what?
“All I hear now is all the liberal points: That ‘we’re cutting Medicaid.’ Medicaid is going bankrupt in the next 10 years. We’re not cutting anything. Or ‘bumps tocks should be illegal.’ Bump stocks had nothing to do with this. ‘We need better vetting.’ What, by the FBI?
“So, I want to know exactly what kind of federal law would have stopped him, because I can’t think of any. Now maybe I’m not as smart as your average Washington politician.
“We are so quick to accept the narrative that is imposed upon us. Now we have kids marching and kids insisting on gun control, and the media exploiting the kids to advance an agenda. The media would never report this way if it came to the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. They’d be indignant. They’d be furious. Certain liberties matter and certain liberties don’t.”