Organizing for Action Lying about Guns (Again)

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_06 Feb. 04 17.45
Simply put, if he was a convicted felon, the man could not have bought a gun “legally.” And OFA knows that.

USA – -( “Just after midnight on December 22, 2014, I got a phone call that no parent should ever get,” a Wednesday email from Organizing for Action (formerly Obama for America) begins. “It was my niece, who I raised as a daughter, telling me that she and my granddaughter had both been shot. A man had broken into her house and chased the two of them into the driveway, before shooting both of them and then himself.”

The writer is one Martha Clark, who happens to be OFA’s Ohio State Lead. And her story, while understandably evoking sympathies, leaves out some key information that a report about her support for Obama’s recent “executive actions” on guns fills in. This was a domestic violence incident – it wasn’t just some random attacker who broke in.

“Preble County Sheriff Mike Simpson said Catherine L. Gessman, 45, ‘did everything she should do’ in getting a protection order to shield herself and her daughter,” a Dayton Daily News report at the time relayed. That’s disputable, noting the utter ineffectiveness of a piece of paper at stopping  someone with murder on his mind. Except the only real defense against that is not something OFA would be inclined to broach.

“Someone from the sheriff’s department told me later that the killer used a gun that he bought legally, with no background check, from a seller on Facebook,” Clark continued in the OFA email. He was a convicted felon.”

If that’s really the case, then he couldn’t have bought the gun “legally.” Felon status and a protective order mean he was “legally” a “prohibited person,” twice over. But OFA isn’t sending its appeal out to people likely to know that, or to ask any questions.

“Thankfully, last week Facebook moved to ban the selling of guns on its site,” Clark elaborated. “Headlines like that give me hope, but hundreds of thousands of guns are still available for sale online, no questions asked and no background check required.”

OFA is appealing to ignorant emotion-driven followers who applaud Mark Zuckerberg sucking up to the power elites by using volunteer snitches to discriminate against gun ownership, as if that will do anything to stop a bad guy. They’re counting on being able to lie to people who don’t know any better. Calculated use of the word “legally” is all that’s needed to convince them we need more laws.

These mouthpieces for the power elite know exactly what they’re doing, so don’t hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing. And that makes their invitation to “Join the OFA Truth Team” all the more Orwellian, and all the more proof of the real truth that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Enders

Any weopon is only a tool and any tool can be a weapon. The World Trade Center was brought down (indrectly) by box cutters! Automobils cause more deaths than firearms do. ONce we get started banning things becasue they can be dangerous if they are misued, there is no end until oure lives are so “safe” that the greatest danger we face is being bored to dearh.

Michael Enders

Facebook may not be selling guns online, but since I have been doing research online while decideing which gun to buy, I see teh ads that accompany this post are from Ruger, Glock, Ammoland, Waltherr, Crossbreed Holsters, Taurus, and Ballistic Advantage. How ironic is that?


It should be called Organizing for Lying instead.

Dr Timothy-Allen Albertson

We need to start boycotting Facebook paid advertisers.

Bill Mullins

Ah, correct me if I’m mistaken, but if the initial contact was via facebook, unless both the buyer AND the seller resided in the same state would the transaction not have required an FFL holder and thus involved a background check? To send a firearm by mail or any other interstate carrier requires FFL holders at BOTH ends. Damn! These people really do not mind lying through their teeth, do they?

Who the heck buys guns on FACEBOOK anyway, for goodness sake? Is that something common?

Mike in WI

Theo, I think most gun owners want the bad guys punished for committing crimes. The fact that many criminals are not, and that the gun charges are frequently pleaded down is a big frustration for most of us.

When the candidates of one party are flat out saying they want to severely restict or ban firearm ownership, in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment, there is no middle ground,


Great job catching the prohibitionists in a blatant lie.

Theo Kelly

I’m a responsible gun owner and former OFA fellow. Yes, the uninformed progressives do indeed misrepresent the facts. That makes it difficult to discuss the issues reasonably with them. It would be much more likely to be possible though if the people in this camp didn’t do exactly the same thing. In this particular case it’s obvious that folks on both ends of the scale and the ones in the middle (like myself) ALL can agree that the “bad guy” here did a bad thing. He should have had his gun taken away. This article makes it seem vitally important… Read more »


Robert is right. We spend to much time and money preaching to our own. Redirect those resources targeting the very large segment of our population that is clueless about firearms and believe what the antis posit because they get their message to this group while we spend millions telling each other what we already believe and know. The pro gun organizations need to get with it and target the masses with our message. Until this happens we are wasting our money and fooling ourselves.

VT Patriot

Can’t help but wonder why they didn’t call the weapon an ‘assault rifle’. Would have more tears flowing. C’mon Martha, you must have forgotten that part. The story is only half effective to the liberal morons with out the use of the words ‘assault weapon’.


Any organization tied to Obama should be dismissed as BS right off the bat.


Protecting your Constitutional Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, is a never ending battle as long as these ‘Leftists’ hold sway over American politics.


Pick, pick, pick. Whittle, whittle, whittle. The anti’s say we are never willing to compromise for “common sense gun control” that “majority of American gun owners support”. Seems to me that we are the ONLY ones compromising. The Brady Bill was a compromise, but now 3 days isn’t long enough to perform checks so we need to give them more time? Requiring checks be performed by all sales via FFL but not by those who do are not in the business, but now even selling 1 gun can mean you are in the business and need an FFL? Guns with… Read more »


There is no limit to the lies “progressive” collectivists and national/international socialists use to work change on our Bill of Rights by disparaging law abiding gun owners in the minds of easily misled, uninformed, or low information voters. Oh and don’t forget the millions of illegal aliens who vote 65+% for these deceivers and Constitutional underminers! This is a war for the mind and soul of American, are you engaged and doing you part with our young people?


The Left will never stop coming after your guns. Criminals will never stop acquiring guns by any means possible. The term “legal” as used here is completely off-base because the attacker, in this case, was most likely known to the victims and, if their story is true, had no “legal” right to own a gun.
But, hey, the Left never lets the facts get in the way of completely taking over your life and controlling how you live