I watch MSNBC, I watch Fox News, I watch CNN - all use the term "smoking gun" incorrectly - They say, "Could we have found possible "smoking guns" thought to be in Iraq...?" or "Could the fluid in a terrorists bottle be a smoking gun?" Are they on crack? A smoking gun is just that - SMOKING, BECAUSE IT WAS FIRED! Unless you fire the weapon, the gun doesn't smoke! Damn, these journalists are idiots. Quit trying to sound smart, Paula ZAHN! You're a hack and everyone knows it!
2006-08-16 16:17:22 · 3 answers · asked by jdfehrenbach 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Figure of speech, retard
2006-08-16 16:26:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As normally used, the phrase refers to evidence that is both conclusive and impossible to refute.
It comes from the criminal law context, where someone caught holding the smoking gun after the murder could not readily claim that they didn't do it. The fact that the gun is in their hands and still smoking (meaning immediately after firing) refutes any argument to the contrary.
It's not meant to be taken literally. But you're also right that the phrase is sometimes used completely incorrectly as well.
2006-08-16 16:22:08 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.It all seems like water over the gate to me.
2006-08-16 16:36:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋