Thoughts on the difference between Brady and NGVAC

Bitter has some analysis on the incoming President of Brady Campaign.
This is what I’ve been saying all along. They have to save their phony baloney jobs. They know that they can’t win legislatively. They know that it’s a matter of time before they get their heads kicked in by Alan Gura again. They know that their foundation money is drying up. They are facing the end of the (anti-gun) world as they know it. So they are going to shift gears, work on their non-profit mission, and focus on trying to fundraise their salaries.
The big question; is NGVAC “official” or rogue? I think it’s a rogue organization. Brady has never done grassroots well. It’s a factor of the way they approach the gun debate. They approach it as top-down technocrats who naturally assume that the people are too stupid to do what’s best for them. That attitude doesn’t change when they look at their own partisans. This would account for how they have consistently used their “victims” as figureheads and human shields instead of policymakers. Thought let’s face it, if you had an organization filled with angry, terrified, faux victims, you’d think that the masses were stupid too.
So what happens to the “true believers” when the bureaucrats tell them that the party’s over? You can just imagine the board meeting.
“Sorry guys, we’ve had our asses handed to us. The Supreme Court has told us twice that the Second Amendment means basically what it says. We couldn’t get tighter gun control out of Obama when he had control of both houses of Congress and a supermajority in the Senate.  Basically we’re screwed.”
“But you told us that the Heller and McDonald decisions were limited and worked to our favor?!?!?”
“You didn’t actually believe our lies, did you? I mean, that’s great, I’m glad someone believes us, but it was just us whistling past the graveyard.”
“But GUNS R EBIL! We must prevail!!!”
“About that, we need to focus less on making changes in the law and more on getting the money to pay my salary.”
“People are dying due to EBIL GUNZ and you’re worried about salaries and your damn TPS reports!??!?!?!?”
(under his breath) “Dear God, why did we let those crazy people in here?”
“We’re leaving and starting our own gun control group! We are GUN VICTIMS!!!111Eleventy! And we want ACTION! NATIONAL ACTION!!”
(mumbled) “don’t let the door hit you on the way out. I know we have to have the support of the masses, but do they have to be such dumbasses? It sure is tough being the Vanguard of the Proletariat.”
This would account for the deeply unprofessional way they operate. We are used to the Brady Campaign acting in a sort of professional way. They have a website that looks good and they have a media strategy that doesn’t totally rely on people being dumb enough to swallow the most outrageous lies. They try to at least stay within shouting distance of something that, if you squint at it on a cloudy day, might pass for the truth.


Do you RSS? Don’t know what an RSS Feed is?

Save time and read all the latest blog news first.

6 responses to “Thoughts on the difference between Brady and NGVAC

  1. Good point, and they think screaming the lies time and again will work… NOT!

  2. I like their statement that they have not removed a single comment to date. Funny thing is I don’t see any comments. I think I’ll have a heaping helping of “Reasoned Discourse”

    I like how they use England for the baseline for “gun homicide”, why don’t they a country this side of the Atlantic? Take Venezuela for example; they have a “gun homicide” rate of about 48 per 100,000. In Venezuela civilian ownership of any gun above .22 caliber is outlawed. If we were to extrapolate that number to our fine country we could expect about 144,000 “gun homicides” a year if guns were outlawed.



  3. they like to use of “gun violence” instead of overall crime rate which makes a lot more sense. If they have to compare the United States to Great Britain in overall crime rate they would lose the argument.. Great Britain has the highest rate of hot burglary in what the anti gunners would like to call the “civilized world.”

  4. Your last bit would factor into NGAC’s latest blog post stating that the gun industry knows that 25% of its sales go to criminals.

    “The NRA and gun lobby block any law that would make it harder for criminals to get guns. WHY?, Because sales to criminals represent 25% of the Gun Industry’s annual sales. (Source: Expert witness report filed as part of the 1999 NAACP lawsuit vs. the Gun Industry.) Then the NRA claims everyone needs to carry a gun at all times to protect themselves from armed criminals. This is very clever marketing— create the demand, then provide the supply.

  5. @jdberger: True. How deluded do you have to be to believe a report that the firearms manufacturers deliberately manufacture weapons for criminals? I don’t think that they are that deluded. I think they are just lying in hopes that someone, somewhere will believe them.

    Since that report was filed in support of a lawsuit thrown out, is it publicly available? Is there some link to a public debunking of it?

  6. My favorite part of that was their source. An “expert witness” that the NAACP dug up for a lawsuit. No mention of who this witness was or what THEIR sources were.

    Oh, you have an “Expert Witness”? Well I guess we should just give up then…