Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:03:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
914 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> Well if I can find out where I read [the Sarah Brady quote], I will be happy
> to tell everyone. I do know that it was extremely unlikely that it was fake,
> otherwise I would not be quoting it.
Hi Mike:
This is just a follow up to our discussion so it doesn't seem like I was
dogging you arbitrarily. I haven't yet found any "original" source for this
quote (by which I mean the actual document or speech in which Brady made the
comment) but I've found several other useful debunkings of it. For example:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
is a fairly detailed discussion of the misquote, including this useful passage:
"The Bradys have been, at least up until recently, registered Republicans,
it is extremely unlikely they would harbor a belief in a socialist America."
That same page also features a link to
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bogus_ds.html in which the details of the
quote's printed origin are discussed in brief.
The consensus seems to be that Brady's quote is alleged to have been
recorded in or by The National Educator, which is not exactly a non-partisan
teacher's periodical. Regardless, the National Educator has never confirmed
the veracity of the quote, nor has anyone ever produced an issue of that
periodical that features the offending quote.
My concern is that there are any number of pro-gun sites that list the Brady
quote as Gospel either without giving a source or simply identifying "The
National Educator" as the original appearance, although "Educator" has never
claimed veracity of the quote. Imagine, for instance, if anti-gun
propagandists were to quote Charlton Heston as saying "the only way to
achieve a free America is to rid our nation of all guns." Would anyone stand
by and accept the quote at face value without further corroboration?
I believe absolutely that you have cited the quote with no intended
deception, and that you accepted its validity in good-faith of your sources.
It seems to me that your sources were in error, but you had no way to know
it and probably no reason to suspect it. For that matter, your sources may
not have known it, so they probably weren't attempting any deception, either.
Oh, well. It's all academic at this point anyway, but I didn't want you to
think I was sniping your quote for no reason. Obviously, the false
attribution of a single quote is irrelevant to the larger gun debate, but
doesn't hurt to get one's citations straight!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well if I can find out where I read it, I will be happy to tell everyone. I do know that it was extremely unlikely that it was fake, otherwise I would not be quoting it. Then again we are talking about conspiracies here. :-) At any rate I will (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
