At the time of the first posting with that language, he was still considering which of a number of charities to give the money to. Originally it was the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy but there had also been other gun-related massacres this past year. There were three major organizations that are focusing on legislation to change current gun laws, but it was his feeling that supporting the efforts of the Brady Campaign was the best way of preventing future victims of gun violence.
I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so much animosity is directed toward the Brady Campaign which came about as the result of the shooting of Jim Brady during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a man protected by trained and armed members of the Secret Service who still were not able to keep the President from being shot.
See, this is the benefits of a reasoned, thoughtful discussion: two perspectives that can point out weaknesses in each other and hopefully produce a stronger idea! Imagine the possibilities!
Want to read something else about ol' Ronnie that's a little more food for thought? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp
Anyway, I'm curious: what is it that you find so objectionable about the Brady Campaign? I admit I don't know a whole lot about the organization, but on looking at their website, I didn't see anything really "out there."
Anyway, I don’t know that something would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay... I haven’t gotten through the looking glass.