Brady Ad Campaign
Another contender for the "Pitiful" award...
Brady Campaign is beginning a billboard campaign attacking Florida, as a tourist destination. The claim is that its recent expansion of legal self-defense will make it more dangerous to tourists (or at least those who break into houses, not a common vacation pursuit).
The billboards will go up at various Florida locations, thus reaching only.... people who have already come there as tourists.
This raises a very interesting question -- just what IS Brady's agenda, other than (a) a generalized desire for fewer guns and things associated with them, and (b) fundraising. The FLA law doesn't single out guns -- it's about self-defense. We might ask the same question in the context of Brady's objections to liberalized issuance of CCW permits. What's its objection to people passing a criminal background check, taking training, getting a permit, and then carrying? I thought Brady liked background checkis and permits. Whether a person carries openly or concealed surely can't matter much to Brady's organizational purpose.
The only sense I can see to this is (a) Brady long ago got all it could get in the way of laws; (b) it sure as heck isn't going to get any more within the foreseeable future (between solid GOP control of Congress and the White House, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina); (c) but they can't just lay everyone off and file for corporate dissolution, so they have to come up with billboards against liberalizing self-defense.
The ability of political organizations to survive their purposes is an interesting topic. Might just write about it someday. Planned Parenthood, as I recall, has a budget of hundreds of millions, in a time when you can get condoms in any drugstore. Mothers Against Drunk Driving still holds forth, in a time when the DUI limit is .08 (not too many years ago it was .15), and punishments are about a strict as could be desired (first offence: day in jail, about a thousand in fines, 90 days suspension of license, loss of insurance; refuse the breathalyzer and license is suspended for a year and prosecution can comment on refusal as proof of guilt).
The Brady Ad Campaign seems pretty desperate and destined to earn them more enemies than adherents.
Posted by: Christopher A. George at September 27, 2005 06:45 AM
Since the allegations are not proved, sue them for slander. I sure would, send the FLA AG to court to get and injuction, bankrupt the nuts.
Posted by: bill at September 27, 2005 09:21 AM
You've touched on one of the favorite libertarian memes: the simplification of bureaucracy. What all thse "anti" organizations are is simply little (or big) non-governmental bureaucracies. They are parasites on our society and economy, and frequently their life extends well beyond their initial raison-d'etre.
There's no solution, short of more sharply defining freedom of speech, and I doubt we want that. Concentrated campaigns can take down individual organizations in this group, but that takes money and, guess what, more organizations.
Sometimes, if ignored, they go away. That's really the only hope.
Posted by: Rivrdog at September 27, 2005 10:40 AM
Well, Riverdog, this is an attempt to libel, slander, and defame a group of people by an organization.
One of the reasons we have slander and libel laws.
Them losing a lawsuit would break the momentum of the group and prevent future encroachments on our rights and liberties.
The group countering them need only be a short term, ad-hoc organization, put together for a single purpose. Exactly the sort of group that would get together to handle any task too big for a single family, such as raising a barn, or informing a group that their activities are frowned upon by more than just one or two individuals in a neighborhood.
In other words, such an oranization would be entirely withen the libertarian traditions of the US.
Posted by: Phillep at September 28, 2005 04:58 PM