In the video below, CBS interviews its own reporter about yesterday’s 60 Minutes report on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. At 2:47, the interviewer asks Steve Kroft interviewer if he thought his report was fair. “Yeah. Yeah,” Mr. Kroft replies. OK then . . . At 3:05, in an excerpt from the segment, Mr. Kroft reveals his objectivity, or lack thereof . . .
“Look, I work for 60 Minutes in New York,” Mr. Kroft tells U.S. Representative Hudson, “and I know if you armed everybody on the floor and allowed them to carry a concealed weapon it would only be a couple of months before someone was shot.”
Holy WTF Batman!
Not “restored my colleagues right to keep and bear arms in the city of New York.” It’s “armed everybody on the floor” and “allowed them to carry a concealed weapon.”
Listen up everyone! Big Brother says it’s OK to carry a gun now. So don’t be shy. Come and get your GLOCK. We’re not leaving here ’til everyone is armed.
Equally, why would someone be shot? Negligent discharge? Retaliation for a #metoo newsroom episode? And what are we to make of the fact that a 60 Minutes senior reporter has so little respect for his fellow journalists’ ability to act responsibly that he doesn’t trust them with a gun? Why should we trust them with a camera?
It gets worse. Fast forward to 3:30:
“It’s not a Constitutional right to carry concealed firearms,” Mr. Kroft tells — tells — Tim Schmidt of the Concealed Carry Association. Not “your opponents say concealed carry isn’t a Constitutional right.” It’s just not, is it you paranoid weaseling white man (whose reply was “edited for brevity”).
This former CNN’er sees the usual anti-gun bias in this report on a report, mated with an attempt to make Mr. Kroft seem like an entirely reasonable (i.e., unbiased fellow). But they. Just. Can’t. Help. Themselves.
CBS’ Overtime apologia inspires me to paraphrase the bard: when it comes to guns. the network doth protest too much, methinks. Youthinks?
I din’t watch, but those who did found it not difficult at all to detect a hard tilt to the left. One example: Kroft interviewed big city police chiefs who were against the bill, but not one of the thousands of county sheriffs who support it Which is significant, since they have, through their association, publicly declared their support. Hell, even in California, the vast majority of county sheriffs back concealed carry.
Once again you can’t let the truth get in the way of a good narrative! The guy should have taken Kroft out on the streets of NY at night in the dark. Daylight on a main street?
I follow congressman Hudson on twitter, he tweeted out to watch. I DVR’ed it and watched it this morning. It was definitely biased. The former Masschusetts police chief, now Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn who goes to EVERY gun control hearing in DC, giffords lawyer, Manhattan DA cyrus vance, etc. It was a leftist piece
So NYC has a basic ban on legally carrying concealed. There isn’t that ban in Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, Charlotte, Boston, etc. yet there is no issue with conceal carriers shooting people. The sky is falling stuff is what they say about some pro gun change every time and when it passes there is no increase in gun incidents.
They lie and fear monger and when the lies prove untrue, it hurts their gun control agenda more than anything else. They are their worst enemies, that and the truth.
Not for long he won’t be…I think his last day is supposed to be Friday…
Their only hope of retaining an iota of even fake credibility is if the bill doesn’t pass. They’ve been telling people for decades that the world will end, if this passes. When the world doesn’t end, they will look like fools and they know it. So they do what all lefties do (*cough* California *cough*):: they double down on oppression, lies, and shrill doom prophesies.
One thing you have to consider. The police chiefs are appointed by the city, not elected, so it is in their best interest to go with the flow of the Mayor & City Council…you know, to keep their job! Sheriffs, on the other hand, are elected by the people. Their jobs depend on enforcing the law, not catering to political entities. They literally ARE, the people’s choice…& their voice, so you can understand why their views are not represented in these “reports”.
Sadly, there are sheriffs who are so leftist it oozes from them. Here in NC, even with a “conservative” state senate and house and our new LEFTIST governor, who won under questionable circumstances, our sheriffs have prevented bills to stop the requirement of paying for a permit to buy a handgun, and to get rid of the permitting and fees of conceal carry. I don’t understand why states are allowed to create unconstitutional laws when they (the states) agreed to support and defend the Constitution when they became a state!
Our only hope is that the old hag ginsburg expires and Trump puts another Gorsuch on the SCOTUS and then they finally hear and make a decision on the 2nd amendment; and force all states to get rid of ALL these illegal rights violations!
The only reason Pooper (my name for him, talks like his mouth is full of crap; oh wait, it is) won is because he was so far behind that the dems woke up 94K dead people in Durham to get to the polls to vote for this scum bag. No wonder they fight voter ID so bad.
Why is it that the fact that many more lives are saves my law abiding citizens with guns than are killed by criminal with guns are never presented?
It is, by far, the most important point and its never used!!
60 Minutes being 60 Minutes.Kroft had his frowny face on too. Coulda’ been worse…how about doddering Dan Rather?!?
In all fairness, Steve Kroft probably sees himself as the very soul of reason rather than the idiot Progressive Democrat a$$-kissing shill that he is.
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!”
— Robert Burns
Which just tells me he wasn’t beaten enough as a child… or as an adult. This is one of the reasons I wholly support bringing back the code duello.
Heartily agree. We were very disappointed to learn that dueling is still explicitly prohibited by the UCMJ as well.
You can thank the Army for that one. The last documented incident of dueling was a pair of functionally retarded West Point cadets.
As usual they the press don’t seem to understand plain written English. Nor a lot of judges the last few hundred years.
As in what part of “shall not be infringed” isn’t clear?? What does bear mean? An animal in the woods??. To “keep” something. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Maybe not to a city slicker. Or a paid politician…
You should reed the 7th Circuit Moore v. Madigan decision. Also compare it to the convoluted decisions against carry outside of the home. That what Kroft should have done even before reporting on the issue.
My copy of Constitution forbids government infringing on our right to own and carry arms and doesn’t list any exceptions. No “unless they are carried concealed” to be found anywhere. So I believe that means it IS a Constitutional right to carry concealed firearms.
Ok, don’t see porn out in public. There is always going to be limits applied to “rights”. Sorry but I really don’t think you can convince 2/3 of people that a non-vetted individual should be able to own a SAW (at least not after you demonstrate one). Most people think it should be illegal to burn a flag. Look at the US motto, it goes from “Out of many, one” to “In God We Trust”.
On a side note, historicaly, when it was socially acceptable to carry arms, concealed carry usaly implied nefarious intentions. Now unfortunately the pendulum swings the other way.
Kroft did not offer up or acknowledge even one defensive hand gun use. He only said both sides have their own opposition research. He did not show outrage at guns but regularly flaunted his bias.
60 Minutes has always been about reporting an agenda going all the way back to their beginning. In several segments where I had first hand knowledge of the story it was very apparent they were not interested in the truth. They are not hard news, only entertainment.
What’s 60 Minutes? Since it’s CBS, I haven’t watched them since Carrol Burnett left. My parents were shocked when I asked them why they allowed a leftist like Walter Cronkite report the news….when he came out as a Demoncrat, my mom said my question had stuck in her head…
I always thought Cronkite was an old school journalist. You know, the kind that would report the news without bias or opinion. Oh well.
Old school doesn’t guarantee competence. The Viet Cong’s Tet offensive persuaded Cronkite that the war in South Vietnam was unwinnable. He completely missed that it was a military catastrophe for the Viet Cong.
No, he was always biased. He just pretended otherwise.
https://www.mrc.org/profiles-bias/walter-cronkite-liberal-media-icon
Some evidence of Uncle Walter’s scumbagery.
He’s a reporter, that automatically makes him a lying, subhuman traitor to the entire human race until proven otherwise.
You could have shortened that to “democrat”. Same difference.
I suppose if you can’t be a reporter you can always fill in as a lawyer.
Technically, he’s not wrong re: 2A and concealed carry. “Shall not be infringed” aside, most courts to consider the question directly have upheld bans on concealed carry.
But that comes with a very notable catch: if a jurisdiction bans concealed carry, then open carry must be allowed. This was alluded to in DC v. Heller almost 10 years ago…
Instead they just wrap bans on ccw into a total ban on “illegal” guns.
This is true, the Constitution reads that it’s the right to bear arms but does not specify concealed or open.
Somehow I imagine his feathers would be highly ruffled if he walked around a freer state where people (gasp) open carry handguns.
Oh look, the propaganda wing of the communist party is at it again… Please tell me how publishing blatant partisan hit pieces rather than actual news allows you to keep the protections granted to actual journalists.
It’s time we had some common sense media control.
More De Sturmer tactics…
Because psychotic coworkers that are tired of your shit will worry about those antigun regs your company has in place, right?
Yeah those rules are coated in kevlar.
Another frustrated hillary fan.
The one thing 60 Minutes did not and could not do is explain how I as a holder of a Georgia Weapons Carry License able to carry a concealed weapon in downtown Atlanta, as I did this weekend, suddenly become a dangerous person by carrying that same firearm in downtown New York City. The politicians including big city police chiefs that they quote make the claim that by coming to their city I somehow become inspired to misuse my gun they even go so far as to imply that following reciprocity New York City is somehow going to become a magnet for suicide tourism!
Of course, 60 Minutes has an anti-gun bias, and Steve Kroft right along with the rest of them. They conflate the opinion of a big city chief of police with the opinions of all police, without acknowledging the fact that the big city chiefs are political appointees and are creatures of their anti-gun bosses. 60 Minutes is happy to proclaim that more guns means more crime. They ignore common sense, and the information and statistics collected and published by John Lott that absolutely proves that more guns does not mean more crime.
“and I know if you armed everybody on the floor and allowed them to carry a concealed weapon it would only be a couple of months before someone was shot.”
Yeah, because God knows New York City regularly goes a couple months without a shooting. No?
When I was a child, I thought that 60 Minutes was supposed to be some sort of bastion of unbiased journalism. Then as an adolescent I watched 2 different episodes where I knew enough facts to realize how dishonest the show was. That was sometime in the 1980s. I haven’t watch a single one of any of those 60 Minutes since. I assume it’s still unadulterated agitprop today.
20 to 25 years ago I made a point to watch every Sunday night. I respected morey, ed, Mike and Andy. The Clinton interview would it for me and subsequently they slid down the leftist hole even more.
I wasn’t even aware it was still on.
The one that actually did it for me was an episode where they advocated for child custody courts to base their decisions on the religion of the respective parents. And I happened to know that much of what they presented was absolutely false. If that isn’t an affront to the First Amendment, I don’t know what would be. Commie agitprop from the start.
There were a whole bunch of errors in the 60 minutes segment that aired last Sunday.
Two stood out to me.
1) they were at a gun store in Mississippi, and they said that anyone over 18 could carry a pistol out of the store, when the minimum age for concealed carry in that state is 21.
2) They stated that getting a driver’s license is harder than getting a concealed carry permit, which is patently false. (Illegal aliens can get driver’s licenses in several states, but not concealed carry licenses) They also seemed to imply that reciprocity would allow people from Constitutional Carry states to carry in other states, even though the law being proposed clearly states that a permit is required to carry in another state, even if your home state doesn’t require a permit.
One big bias: they’re describing gun carry as common in remote rural areas, failing to mention huge cities like Miami, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, Seattle and many many others with widespread carry.
But the other bias is one the NRA is promoting in lock-step with the gun-grabbers: no mention of the enormous number of carry permit corruption cases by dirty cops and sheriffs from the NYPD to LAPD in the states with discretionary permits. The NRA doesn’t want to discuss this because with widespread police corruption, if they call out corruption in any department they’ll be slammed by every other. That’s the sad face of American law enforcement today.
And one of the most obvious beneficiaries of bribery to obtain a permit: a guy name of Donald J. Trump…
As to reciprocity being “dangerous to cops” – in some departments, yes, very likely. There are cops committing massive civil rights violations in NY, Baltimore Los Angeles for example that might finally be at risk if they pull the same bullshit on visitors from out of state. In some cases the civil rights violations they’ve committed are so extreme they damned well should have been shot long ago. They’ll have to think about that possibility now. Good.
I’d be afraid to work at 60 minutes, seems to be full of psycho killers.
The only reason he’s not scared to death working with these people is because they’re not allowed to carry guns. So, they’re all okay in his book.
“and I know if you armed everybody on the floor and allowed them to carry a concealed weapon it would only be a couple of months before someone was shot.”
Another classic straw man. Who actually advocates “arming everyone on the floor?” Did someone say this? No. It is merely Kroft constructing a dummy that he prefers to do battle with.
Or he’s saying that his co-workers are all raging, self-entitled, gimmie-what-I-want-right-this-second assholes who actually would shoot each other over a bruised ego or that they’re such great examples of such that a staffer would finally have enough and off one off them after one too many beratings about not enough/too many cucumber slices being in the water that’s being served three degrees too cold/warm and not the the proper napkin.
I worked for a guy like that at one point. He was a big-wig Chef/Restaurateur and a total dickhead about things like this. Fortunately he didn’t show up to work much because he was too busy with his other restaurants or playing with whatever his millions bought him.
I’m not saying that this is the case but I can’t say I’d be shocked if it was.
Kroft may well be correct. There are a bunch of truly wacko dems in the house/senate. Starting with Pilosi.
4more nuts pictured here http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/ortiz-success-of-tax-cuts-exposes-hypocrisy-of-the-democrats/
Based on the embedded video, he was less biased than I would have expected for 60 Minutes. His interview of Tim Schmidt later in the clip indicates his fear of NYC in general. The statement about the crowds in Times Square and corollateral damage to innocent bystanders reminds me of the time a few years ago when the NYPD opened up on a psycho who had killed his boss up in an office, and hit a group of bystanders before they finally got the guy. The most telling statement is indeed that he would expect a shooting at the CBS studios in NYC while seeming to intellectually recognize, even if he can’t bring himself to admit it, that this does not happen with any great frequency elsewhere. Of course, it did happen at the CBS affiliate in Roanoke, VA to a tragic end, and that may be what he fears. Perhaps Kroft understands that the news industry covers for sexually sick psychos who were fired from previous jobs for violent tendencies toward co-workers and allows them to continue their sick lives unabated at subsequent news desks until they snap, stalk and kill unarmed innocents, and then, cowards that they are, kill themselves. I will not mention the name, but Google the shooting, link around, and you will see what I mean. Yes, my bias is showing. I did not know the people who were killed but long before the shooting I had met the one lady who survived. And yes, I wish that those who had been shot had carried themselves, and had been able to respond when the lunatic approached.
I flipped over to it to record it and heard about 10 seconds of dialog and decided nah, it was not worth it….
Bravo Sierra,the Communist Broadcasting System wouldn’t know “Fair and Balanced” if it jumped up and bit them in the azz.
Kroft is delusional at best and at worst a useful toll for his masters to push their Communist agenda.
Was there more than one? The one I saw was very misleading. Reciprocity is like a drivers license, but remember you must still must obey the laws of wherever you carry, a point never mentioned. They did imply, several times, that out of state visitors were murderous lawbreakers. Truly false news at it’s best.
I wonder whether Tim Schmidt or Hudson mentioned the abysmal murder resolution rates in the “gun free” cities, that was left on the cutting room floor.
I suppose what bothers me the most, is that some city-dwelling, law-abiding citizens needlessly live in fear. They’re fearful, not only of lawless thugs but the firearms that could potentially save them from harm.
Their leadership from the mayors to their police chiefs spout garbage to cow the population. Then, of course, there’s the media…
Ed Rogers: Excellent points. Are you saying it’s possibly intentionally done to keep them in fear?
“….if you armed everybody on the floor and allowed them to carry a concealed weapon it would only be a couple of months before someone was shot.” That says more about the people Kroft works with than about gun owners in general. It would be more accurate to say that, if you armed a bunch of gang bangers, someone would get shot or, if you gave a high school full of teenagers Corvettes with their driver’s licenses, one of the cars would soon be wrecked.
See B. S. News, hey yup.
So confident that he was able to present an “unbiased” view, even with editing by city-dwellers, that who could possibly believe that more anti-gun laws ALWAYS brings more violent crime. Oh yes, it was presented at 24:38:14.37 of a 6:08 cut, but time constraints, advertising $$$, blah, soros-funding, blah-blah-blah, et cetera [AKA we need not go anywhere near ‘ it was creative reporting’].
Hmmmm. If a famous reporter wanted to know about how Police Officers felt about the issue, the following should be pretty easy enough to find at Policeone http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
(The good stuff starts after the respondent demographic breakdown)
It was clear as day that 60 Minutes’ agenda was to stoke the anti’s fire and ensure the CCR Act fails in the Senate.
“It’s not a Constitutional right to carry concealed firearms,” is factually correct although Kroft wouldn’t know why because he’s Constitutionally ignorant. It is a factually correct statement because the Constitution granted no rights, it reiterated our natural rights, one being to right to keep and bear arms. Not just for hunting or self preservation, those are a given, but our Founders intended we be armed (as well as a standing army) to protect ourselves from Tyrannical Federal Government. State militia’s were the force to be called forth to defend us by force if necessary against Government overreach.
I’m sure you all are aware that “National Reciprocity” would be Unconstitutional and that enacting such legislation would be outside the scope of FedGov’s delegated powers, not to mention a violation of the 2nd Amendment. After all such a bill is asking permission of the Government to exercise your natural right, hence it is an infringement.
good editorial on this
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/12/cbs-news-national-reciprocity-flyover-countrys-security-blanket-become-coastal-cities-nightmare/
Communist Broadcast System = CBS
If you get to write and ask the questions, then edit the answers into any order you want, such as show the answer to Q5 after running Q2 or just show the “guest” being grilled and thinking. Pregnant pauses.
Sample question…
When you were a child did you have guns in your house and did you have sex with your sister ?
Someone needs to find out if CBS has armed guards at their NYC headquarters.
(ha-ha -ha- auto correct made it “aged gourds”)
New York may or may not be “safer” this last year or 2, but that says NOTHING. The SULLIVAN ACT is & was one of the most restrictive gun control laws ever passed. Supposedly it was to stem the increasing violence in NYC, and it was passed over 100 YEARS ago! Hasn’t done much good, has it?
As to “fair & balanced reporting,” I only saw 1 state cited for PRO reciprocity, and several for anti.
I also saw NO “balanced” statistics as to how many states who relaxed their carry laws have actually had a REDUCTION in violent crime.
P.S. – Anybody remember that talking head in Washington D.C. who pushed so loudly against carrying guns, then was later arrested for carrying one? — True, it was back in the 1970’s, but it is the same old “do as I say, but I’ll do as I want…”
Comments are closed.