Fundraising Suicide
Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, “curbing large volume sales,” i.e., one gun a month.
Leaving aside whether those would pass muster … how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I’d wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a “good start” rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month — that they’d never get beyond that — they might well bail out.
If I were Peter Hamm or Paul Helmke, I’d be thinking there surely has to be other places in the D.C. establishment where they can put their skills and talents to more effective and creative use.
Since the anti-gunners are all on the payroll, I suppose the Brady Bunch will have to start getting funds from the Joyce Foundation.
Update: More thoughts here.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, “curbing large volume sales,” i.e., one gun a month.”
There is also what we could push for, such as shutting down an organization that exists solely for the purpose of destroying Constitutionally protected civil rights. The Founders didn’t write the Second Amendment so that the First Amendment could be used to destroy it, and thereby doom the First Amendment itself as well. The Brady Center is getting away with shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and our freedom is being trampled to death as a result. We must change that.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
so it’s cool to limit people to one word a month, bans on assault words, and backround checks on private conversations…I mean come on it’s ok to limit our other enumerated rights, why not all the rest? Words are much more dangerous than firearms. I guess that some places can vote to limit the 16th amendment too, right. I mean if peopel are taxed so much that they aren’t able to buy flat screens the local governments should be able to guarantee thier people’s comfort by limiting taxes.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
If history is our teacher, I can think of only one lesson. When the Brady Bill and the so-called assault ban went into effect, gun purchases and NRA membership went up considerably.
That one example would contradict your prediction, wouldn’t it?
Yet, the Constitution has clearly been on the side of liberty all along.
Can we say my one example is inapplicable– that the antis have been losing for so long, that this further heavy blow would be a tipping point of sorts, demoralizing them rather than arousing or inspiring them to fight with renewed vigor?
Then again, the pro freedom activists had been losing for a long time (since 1934 or 1968, depending on one’s level of awareness) when Brady passed, and the loss inspired them to act.
As I’ve stated before, I believe it was Brady and the assault ban (losses for pro gunners) that started the ball rolling– more people went out and bought guns for the first time, and as I assert, lead eventually to more “shall issue” carry laws and the recent awakening to the fact that armed citizens save lives.
I am hopeful, since (at least here in the U.S. for now) truth and freedom are a bit harder to kill than BS and authoritarianism.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I’ve personally never bought more than one gun a month, though I also haven’t won the Texas lottery before either. If the latter happened, the former might change.
Most people who have the financial means to buy more than one gun a month, or a .50 cal rifle, etc, are some of our wealthiest and most productive citizens. Another piece of “touchy feely” proposed legislation that 1) does nothing to impact crime 2) chips away at our constitutional freedoms.