Snopes says mostly true. I'm not sure they know what that means when the quotes are the same word for word and the claim is that he said that.

  1. I’m no law expert, but I’m pretty sure full sending some 00 Buck through the door when they haven’t made entry is probably a bad idea.

  2. That's an excellent point. I wonder if the defense of " the president told me to do it" would stand up. If it didn't then sue for bad legal advice. That would be an interesting twist if it would go anywhere.

  3. Depends. You're probably legally covered if they're actively trying to break down the door, at least in a Castle Doctrine state. Far less so if they're just yelling or refusing to get off your porch.

  4. Depends on the state. Many states with the Castle Doctrine technically allow this just so long as the target is under an awning or some sort of roof. However, even if that's the case, I'd hate to try to argue that it was the best course of action later in civil court.

  5. also probably ignorant to think you can fire two blasts outside to scare someone off and then you'll be safe

  6. Snopes tends to give leniency to anti-gun quotes explain way anything wrong and finds any way to downgrade anything pro-gun. There is no wrong context here, the quote is flat-out true and in context.

  7. I've become extremely skeptical of Snopes overall because they tend to do this with a lot of things. They have a fairly evident agenda once you start looking into things. They're fairly standard, run-of-the-mill Democrats, I think, and seem to be inclined overall towards upgrading/being lenient with Democrat policy, statements, etc., while downgrading anything conservative on technicalities.

  8. Gonna need some citation on that. I have seen plenty of snopes articles claiming democrats lied about various claims of firearms and firearm laws. I have seen no evidence that snopes unfairly favors the left or anti-gun claims.

  9. While they certainly can be they can be important too. It goes to show us that we need to constantly check the checkers as they are not immune to political pushing by any means.

  10. If they did it correctly they couldn't create this wiggle room for themselves and people who want to use this information to lean the way they want. There's no context so they have to take that statement as is. Now they could say this statement is false. But context should be added before you leave. ( because mostly false is very squishy and people will interpret it how they want.) But the reason would be he didn't kill any himself but had (accurate amount) killed under his leadership and orders. This is stated in a specific way.

  11. That is such a great scene, as Frank is so ridiculous in the whole episode. It's just fun commentary and so truthful on so many different levels.

  12. Never heard this one, but I recall him telling his wife to (if she hears an intruder inside) take the shotgun out on the balcony and fire a shot into the air; the intruder will scramble out.

  13. I also have some examples in comments where "correct attribute" is used and context corrections are given. It's just the inconsistencies are there but they're not ridiculously huge. It just makes me wonder why they are there. It was suggested to send it in so I'm going to do that and see what they say.

  14. It's probably labeled mostly true to mean "it happened but there's additional context lost from just saying the qoute" I see them do that a lot, where mostly true/false means it did/didn't happen but there's more to the story that you should know.

  15. They kind of say so but it's just he says this along with saying people don't need ar 15's. It's still a very bad suggestion for protection, being likely to land one in jail, and like saying if you fill your property with booby taps that will work too. Even though that's illegal and not good advice either. It also doesn't really address the context in which the quote is being usedin a slightly disingenuous way.

  16. Because the words are only part of the thing that snopes considers when rating, as they should. wording, intent, context are all important.

  17. It’s fair to say this is mostly true. Snopes usually takes context into consideration when they determine whether or not something is true, which is happening here.

  18. Your example I can certainly agree with, as the context is much more important as it qualifies the entire statement. If the Canada part were taken on its own the question comes up of what about people that can't afford it, and that is answered with the statement.

  19. I have to add this as they have a different marker but give context after and I'm not sure why it was done on these but not the one I originally showed. ( don't make me look up more of these as I don't like thinking about that orange limp d*ck of a person)

  20. This seems to be way too much of a qualifier and doesn't really address the context in which this quite is used either. This context is that shooting someone through your door is OK, and pointing out that there are problems with that statement. Sure it's something you could do instead, or you could have boiling tar above your door and burn the person to death even though the lawfulness of this would be highly suspect, and certainly illegal if used as a true boobytrap device.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin