Over the years I have not been a big fan of the term "inerrancy" regarding scripture preferring the use of "infallibility" as a better representative of the truth of scripture. The various arguments for and against inerrancy have not swayed my ground with regard to a full expression of the truths of scripture however the battle of the term and it's advocates and opponents has been on-going since Warfield first elevated the matter to church attention. Fundamentalism, as a political movement among various church groups, latched onto the inerrancy debate in the 19th century and has spawned several associated movements, in particular the King James Version Only adherents. The more extreme advocates of inerrancy tend to favor this latter group of believers while the polar opposites tend toward open theism and liberal excess.
I stumbled across this link on another site. It presents an interesting discussion and is a good reference for understanding some of the arguments and responses of both sides. In addition, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers the modern background of this issue.