search
top

Hypocrisy Much?

Via Glenn, an anti-gun State Senator in North Carolina shoots an intruder in his home. Maybe he wants to reconsider his position.

UPDATE: It seems this is a mistake. This Democrat is NRA A-rated an is endorsed. People should check shit before saying crap, and I should know better than to link to forums without following the old mantra of “trust but verify.”

UPDATE: Instapundit has corrected the record, and for the record, I meant folks on forums should check their facts before jumping the gun. I understand how easy it is for bloggers to get sucked in by the rumor mill. It’s happens to all of us at one point or another. I should note no one on the forum has corrected the error.

30 Responses to “Hypocrisy Much?”

  1. Philbert says:

    Do you have any background on why this senator is called “anti-gun”? He has an NRA A grade for 2008.

  2. Bitter says:

    Just for those wondering, Philbert is right. He has been A rated and endorsed in the last 3 elections. The one before that, he was a B+, but still endorsed in 2002. His grade seems to be consistently at or above the GOP candidates, the last of which wouldn’t even respond to gun owners.

  3. Diogenes Online says:

    Heh – it was too good for Dr. Reynolds to fact check too…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/86223/

  4. Xrlq says:

    There’s a lesson in this: before dropping H-bombs, check twice, and a third time. Does the politician in question favor a complete ban on firearms, or on the particular firearm he used to defend himself? Or does he favor a ban on concealed carry, but holds the same permit he would deny to others? If so, then yes, he’s a hypocrite. But if the only beef is that he favors some gun laws most gunnies oppose, and was caught red-handed acting consistently those policies, WTF kind of “hypocrisy” is that?

  5. Ronnie says:

    Elsewhere in North Carolina, in Halifax, I think, it seems that yet another homeowner just used his legally-owned firearm to defend himself from an armed man who drove all the way down from South Jersey to settle a 20-year-old grudge between the two of them, all because of a falsely-perceived extramarital affair that one supposedly had with the other’s wife.

  6. Mopar says:

    I know what the NRA rating is, but I also see that Grass Roots North Carolina/Forum for Firearms Education (grnc.org) rates him 1 star out of 4. According to them he previously only voted WITH gun owners 65% or the time. Not exactly “pro-gun” but not as bad as some others. Maybe that’s the reason for the NRA backing? He’s the lesser of 2 evils?
    http://grnc.org/remember_november/

  7. A. Huddleston says:

    So, folks in forums should “checki their shit”, but we can’t expect bloggers to? That’s insane.

  8. Carl from Chicago says:

    People totally committed to a cause fact-checking news that supports their cause?

    Now, why on earth would they do that?

    [/sarcasm]

  9. Hulon says:

    Mr. Reynolds is far too important to waste time worrying about the validity of things to which he links.

  10. Sebastian says:

    It’s a linking medium. The responsibility for the fact checking is on the original source. All bloggers can do is correct the record when they’ve been duped. No one has time to fact check every single source before they link it. Bloggers do have that responsibility when they are the original source.

  11. ishida says:

    I wonder how many high-rated people have turned out anti-gun, or those that they have endorsed.

    So, what’s his ACTION rap, not what he spews forth from his mouth? HIs ACTIONS will determine if he’s anti-gun or not.

  12. Philbert says:

    You can get an NRA rating once by pretending to be pro-gun, but this guy has been A-rated for years. Clearly he upset someone who started this “anti-gun hypocrite” rumor. I wonder what he did.

  13. A. Huddleston says:

    You weren’t quoting a “source”. You heard some bullshit rumors and ran with it like it was fact.

    That’s how you guys want to roll–you’re not interested in credibility–that’s your business. But you’ve no business criticizing the MSM.

  14. Sebastian says:

    Because the regular media has never repeated rumors without fact checking. No, that never happens. And you know, they always correct the record too, when they get it wrong.

  15. A. Huddleston says:

    I never said they didn’t. It’s YOU who criticizes when you’re clearly no better.

    And don’t give me this crap about no time to fact check. Nobody’s pushing a deadline on you. If you don’t have time to fact check (a simple phone call in this case), then don’t publish or “re-publish” the rumors.

    Let me guess…
    “We’re not ones to go ’round spreadin’ rumors.
    No we’re just not the gossipin’ kind.
    No, you’ll never hear US repeatin’ gossip.
    So you’d better be sure and listen close the FIRST time.”

  16. Sebastian says:

    I had this post corrected within 15 minutes of posting it because the system worked. Does it work that quickly when the MSM screws up?

  17. Sebastian says:

    And I would never claim that blogs are more reliable than the MSM, but the process tends to weed out bad information better than traditional publication. A lot of that is inherent.

  18. Mopar says:

    I’m not sure what all the pissing is about. Like I posted earlier, despite the senator’s A-rating from the NRA, his voting record apparently shows he votes against gun owners almost as much as he votes with them. That may not make him “anti gun”, but he’s certainly not pro gun either, in spite of his NRA rating.

  19. Sebastian says:

    Where’s it outline his voting record?

  20. Mopar says:

    I’m just going by the “2008 Guide to Candidates’ Views on Guns” posted by Grass Roots North Carolina at http://grnc.org/remember_november/
    According to them (and no, I can’t vouch for their facts either) Soles did not respond to their survey (not really unusual there) so no rating on their survey, He voted with gun owners 65% of the time. Under “other” (defined as “Derived from evaluations by other gun groups, bill sponsorship, etc.”) they give him a 78. For their final overall evaluation; on a scale of 0-4 stars, they rate him 1 star.
    Now, perhaps someone with more time and interest in it then I can contact GRNC for more info, or pour over his actual voting record. I just find it interesting that there is this whole big to-do over is the guy is anti-gun or pro-gun when to me it looks like he is neither. Or both.

  21. Sebastian says:

    I don’t lend any credibility to GOA’s ratings unless I see what votes they consider “going against gun owners” Hell, GOA would probably rank a vote for public option as against gun owners at this point with as much noise as they’ve made.

    Not that I like public option, but it has nothing to do with guns.

  22. A. Huddleston says:

    “I had this post corrected within 15 minutes of posting it… ”

    Which shows in crystal clear fashion how little it would’ve taken for you to fact check in the FIRST place.

    The “system” of fact-checking works too! And you can avoid misinformation, libel, unjustly destroyed reputations and potential lawsuits. But I guess those things don’t mean anything to you.

  23. Sebastian says:

    I should have checked his NRA grade before linking it, I’ll give you that. But I don’t make those kinds of mistakes very often, and am normally more careful.

    Look, don’t think I don’t feel bad about getting it wrong. The guy is A rated and endorsed. But I did what I could when I found out the report linked to was misleading about his position on the issue.

    And in order to win a libel lawsuit as a public figure, he has to prove malice on my part, which since I corrected the record when I became aware, would indicate I’m not strictly liable for.

    Bloggers, reporters, and forums make mistakes, but the greatest duty is on the person originating the story. Someone like Glenn Reynolds couldn’t run his blog if he had to fact check every single thing he linked. I have a different format than he does, which is why I should have checked.

    So take that as an admission of an error on my part, and an apology for the mistake, and a vow that I’ll try to strive for better next time.

    But if you’re interest is in trolling, I would suggest going elsewhere.

  24. A. Huddleston says:

    Not a troll. Just looking for a little of that accountability I always hear your kind talking about. I’m sorry. I’m new here. I didn’t realize you wanted an echo chamber.

    But I will accept what you’ve offered.

    I will say that Glenn doesn’t get off the hook either though. He couldn’t run his blog like he does, meaning constant new links that keep traffic coming back? I’m sure that’s true. But perhaps by taking more time, he could offer more in depth treatment of subjects than just drive-bys. And then again, we’d avoid repeating false gossip and the damage that can be caused.

    • Bitter says:

      How is it you always hear him talking about accountability while also being new here? We know you’re new here since this is the only post you ever commented on and you continue to beat your chest even though the issue has long been corrected.

      In fact, I’ve been patiently waiting for you to rail against Glenn. Considering the only post you’ve ever followed and trolled was linked by Glenn and your focus of anger was on bloggers, I assumed you had a link due to your time at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Is this really a beef with Glenn that you’re expressing here because we allow comments and he does not?

      This site is far from an echo chamber, but at this point, you’re really just screaming the same thing over and over again when rational people have accepted the mea culpa and moved on.

  25. Carl from Chicago says:

    Huddleston:

    You claim you’re new and by way of introduction, you refer to us as “your kind?”

    Gee … you really know how to win friends and influence people.

  26. A. Huddleston says:

    Bitter: Um… the mea culpa didn’t come ’til the last comment last night at 9:22pm. And then it came with a little slap at the end suggesting I could just be a troll. So I was responding to that. While I appreciate the (eventual) mea culpa, surely you can understand that throwing the word “troll” at the end reflects something short of accountability?

    As for Glenn–yes absolutely, I’d be railing there if comments were allowed. On the other hand, Sebastian is the one who spread the “gossip” picked up from some open forum, and then Glenn only linked here.

    As for accountability, fair enough. Nevertheless, accountability IS important and it’s good for everyone!

  27. A. Huddleston says:

    Nevermind. I was wrong. Glenn is I guess relatively more at fault. I think your second update is what just teed me off–the suggestion that somebody somewhere has some responsibility but there is no responsibility for bloggers in general.

  28. Sebastian says:

    I think we all have a responsibility for fact checking, the question comes once error is realized, what is the response? I stated what I meant poorly in the update.

  29. Philbert says:

    I’m surprised that this is still going on. I grant that this post was an avoidable mistake, but let’s keep it in perspective. It was corrected within minutes – a time short enough that Sebastien could have thrown this post down the memory hole as has been done many times in electronic media both amateur and professional. Instead, he let the world see his mistake and its correction, which led to Instapundit and at least one other site (see the trackbacks) also correcting this story. A little credit is due, I think.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Anti-Gun NC senator shoots intruder - NY Firearms - [...] Snowflakes in Hell Blog Archive Hypocrisy Much? Looks like I gave bad info. He apparently got an A…
  2. Oh, the Irony « The Big Think - [...] Correcting the record? Turns out this might not be true. Comments [...]
top