May 4, 2013

"According to our most recent records, it looks like you haven't signed it yet/ Petition status: Unsigned/Suggested action: Add your name here."

I'm not good at taking suggestions. I get my own ideas — in this case, to blog about the email I just got from Sara El-Amine, National Organizing Director, Organizing for Action, with the subject line: "Petition status: Unsigned":

Ann --

This week, OFA volunteers are hand-delivering a petition to Congress with the names of every OFA supporter who's fighting to reduce gun violence.
Fighting? That sounds violent. If I must fight, I'll fight creepy email. Not by unsubscribing from the email list, of course. That's not my style.

57 comments:

cubanbob said...

So if they can't persuade you they must coerce and shame you.

Achilles said...

They are fighting. They are fighting to restrict gun rights. Just like Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Lenin. All fighting for the little people. The oppressed. For them to give up their rights and freedom so the great leader can make things fair and safe.

Synova said...

I like how "fighting to reduce gun violence" means "make laws that won't impact gun violence."

wyo sis said...

Does this method ever work?

bagoh20 said...

I must thank you for your typos. I am probably the worst offender here, and I know you only do it to make me feel welcome. Thank you.

Mark O said...

"Not by unsubscribing from the email list, of course. That's not my style."

I wouldn't let them know I didn't like them either.

Pogo said...

They're plucking the wrong strings here.

Give them time.

Bender said...

They are keeping records on who has not signed? They are taking notes on who is not joining in the cheers for our Dear Leader?

MadisonMan said...

That's the 3rd email about it I've received, so I've unsubscribed. Or at least, I've asked to. I doubt it'll happen.

Creeps.

edutcher said...

Hate to have anything happen.

Ya know?

Bruce Hayden said...

Their problem is that they had a window of opportunity, and thought that they had some sort of mandate, and so overreached. And, even the
"compromise" legislation was overreaching. Not maybe in theory, but rather for what was in it.

So, down here in the Phx area, had a bunch of ads going after Sen. Flake for his vote against gun control. But, then, a bunch of ads from a gun rights group congratulating him for his brave stance, and pointing out that the anti-ads were being paid for by a big city mayor (i.e. billionaire Bloomberg in NYC). That and a lot of calls makes it highly unlikely that he will switch his vote. Now, if the Organizing for Obama group had done this before the legislation went down in smoke, then there is some chance that it might have passed the Senate, to die in the House, as was planned. Now though, the Senate has immigration and the budget to worry about, and no matter how many of these coerced petitions get signed, the topic is unlikely to get priority again this year, and next year is, of course, an election year, with a lot of red state Dems up for reelection (those who aren't bailing because of their ObamaCare vote).

jr565 said...

I'm with them if its solely about background checks in areas where there are loopholes. Like at gun shows. But as someone else pointed out, the only time where you don't have a background check at a gun show is if you are selling guns in the parking lot.
So, really the issue is about legal versus illegal gun sales. And there, you could increase criminal penalties for selling guns illegally without impacting legal sales of guns.

The dems just have to be weenies about this.

Bruce Hayden said...

I like how "fighting to reduce gun violence" means "make laws that won't impact gun violence."

Had a name for this in Nineteen Eighty-Four, think it was "doublespeak". Something like that.

madAsHell said...

Why does this remind me of a bad Star Trek episode?

"Are you one, Herbert??"

Pogo said...

Continuous organizing.

What a great Preezy.

Tim said...

I wish they'd focus on taking guns away from criminals rather than turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

But that's hard.

And people are stupid.

AprilApple said...

Did they offer Free! Obama brass knuckles with every signature?
(paid for with your tax dollars)

Chip Ahoy said...

Ah, the Star Trek hippies. Way to Eden. "I'm not Herbert."

"He's not Herbert."

Obviously not Herbert. He makes a terrible "one" Look at it, no don't look at it, I'll tell you, Spock greets the hippies on the transporter pad and makes a triangle sign with two hands so poorly he should flunk acting school and that's the sign for trinity not a two-handed Zero, the sign for one.

But this government reminds me of another early Star Trek where the people are starkly half white and black, and one side is all prejudicey and biased and hurry toward their opposites, which nobody notices until they point it out because, duh.

Let that be your last battlefield. (1969.) Obama would have been 8.

AprilApple said...

I'm looking forward to the day when that creepy O symbol lands I the trash.

Tim said...

Bender said...

"They are keeping records on who has not signed? They are taking notes on who is not joining in the cheers for our Dear Leader?"

And, of course, we're supposed to trust them to dispose of the background check they want all gun buyer to submit to, instead of realizing the background checks will, over time, become the master list of legal gun-owners across the nation.

Chip Ahoy said...

autocorrect changed hurty to hurry.

n.n said...

The only way to reduce gun violence, and any act of involuntary exploitation, really, is to increase the risk and opportunity cost for individuals whose behavior is not constrained by proscriptive laws and who do not respect the individual dignity and life of other people.

It's important to note that the suggested gun control measures would not prevent the violence they are purportedly designed to address. In particular, they would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre, since the guns were obtained after murdering their rightful owner.

Perhaps OFA should review how its own policies and aspirations contribute to progressive corruption and actually disempowering individuals, thereby leaving them vulnerable to suffer involuntary exploitation at the hands of criminals, fanatical activists, and excessive government intrusions.

MadisonMan said...

a bad Star Trek episode?

No such thing exists.

Aridog said...

wyo sis said...

Does this method ever work?

Sho'nuff sis....look at the 2012 election results :-))

pst314 said...

Tim "I wish they'd focus on taking guns away from criminals rather than turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals."

But they fear good, honest citizens far more than they fear criminals.

MadisonMan said...

...and if someone says What about Turnabout Intruder? I will say So horribly bad it's good.

Tom said...

As a general rule, whenever I hear a politician say that he or she is "fighting" for something or other, I can't help but find that person to be a loathsome, despicable loser with no balls. There, i said it. now go "fight" for someone else.

robinintn said...

n.n, you're pointing out features, not bugs.

Chip S. said...

Good to know that the petition's going to be hand-delivered to Congress.

Message: It's so important to us that we used up valuable office-intern time to print and deliver hard copies.

Question: But what about the dead trees???

Mark O said...

Somewhere, Obama has that law school picture of Ann.

Douglas2 said...

The experience of my country is that if you can completely ban private ownership of handguns, then for the next decade you get a huge (and counter-intuitive) increase in gun violence and an even greater increase in violent crime generally. Then you hire twice as many police officers, and put a tremendous effort into stopping gang crime (the reason for almost all of the gun violence) and over the next several years you get a dramatic fall in all forms of violent crime, to the point where the murder rate and rate of gun violence is lower than before the gun ban and falling.
Seems to me the intelligent way to fight gun violence would be to proceed directly to the stuff that works, and skip the decade where you end up having twice as many people killed and maimed by gunfire...

Chip Ahoy said...

What? Turnabout Intruder, what is that? I never heard of that.

[youtube turnabout intru ...]

self completes

to the gayest episode I've ever seen. Kirk turns into a woman and Spock sees through his Spockly ways that Kirt fantasizes about kissing him. I. did. not. know. this.

n.n said...

robinintn:

The bug seems to be around 7 billion people, each with their own dreams, and finitely available and accessible resources. At least that seems to be a bug and not a feature. The distinction depends on your perspective, and, perhaps, a knowledge which is not in our possession.

It could also be a feature, for some people, and interests. A readily exploitable set of disparities to advance one's own political, economic, and social standing. For many and perhaps most people, their dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification, as well as vulnerability, lurk just beneath the surface. They represent prime opportunities indeed.

Treating symptoms is a profitable enterprise in perpetuity. It is the ideal "business" model, when either causes are unknown or ignored.

Richard Dolan said...

Creepy is as creepy does: by their deeds shall you know them.

Mumpsimus said...

It seems to me that a lot of people who don't even own guns, or think about the issue much, must be getting disturbed at how very badly their government wants them not to have one.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"I'm with them if its solely about background checks in areas where there are loopholes. Like at gun shows."

There is no loophole. The law simply states private parties don't need to check with the government before selling items between each other.

This is the same at a gun show as it is in a friend's sunroom or a hunting location or a parking lot.

Aridog said...

NotquiteunBuckley said...

There is no loophole. The law simply states private parties don't need to check with the government before selling items between each other.

Uncertainty here, and this is a shall issue CCW state...does the law say that about just long guns, or all guns, including pistols. Where I live you can NOT just sell/trade/give a handgun to someone else without their having a CPL license or purchase permit from local police, and then you must file a form documenting the transfer. And you DO file the form because that is the only way to transfer responsibility away from yourself. This applies even to parents and their kids...must have carry license or purchase permit...e.g., background check long before.

David said...

Hey, they govern by deception. This is completely consistent.

ampersand said...

I ran across a very curious polling question from Ipsos.

" Do you think legalizing firearms will lead to an increase in crime?"

Either the questioner is a foreigner or the questioner is a very stupid American thinking the gun debate is about legalization.

BTW 27% answered yes.

Gahrie said...

The next e-mail you'll get will be one explaining that they signed the petition for you, because they know that's what you would want.

leslyn said...

The petition sounds violent? Try Wayne LaPierre, the man paid to sell guns: the effort to stop increased background checks is a "long war."

War?? He's inciting war? Sounds like South Carolina all over again.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

"According to our most recent records ..."

Really? And what records are those?

Typical Democrats. Spying and intimidation. No wonder they love Unions/Mob.

Big Mike said...

I can almost see Obama wagging his finger at you, Professor.

Synova said...

Airdog, I would think that your State laws apply in your State.

The federal law requiring a back-ground check doesn't apply to private sales so places like NM, AZ, TX or AK (I think those, don't know if there are others) that don't have additional rules let you sell a gun to someone if you're not a dealer without a background check.

But they make it sound like *gun shows* are excepted from back-ground checks and that's just a lie.

I really don't think that very many people would object to a system where private sales between people could have background checks but "the other side" would never try to figure out how to do it in a way that didn't make a record of sales.

(I'm sorry that your state government has a list of your guns.)

Big Mike said...

I can almost see Obama wagging his finger at you, Professor.

EMD said...

I fixed the OFA logo for you.

Sam L. said...

...and the horse you rode in on!

robinintn said...

n.n, Sorry, I meant they're features to the people implementing the policies. They're certainly bugs to pretty much everyone else.

mesquito said...

Those emails stopped when I sent a snarky reply to Stephanie Cutter.

Aridog said...

Synova said...

Aridog, I would think that your State laws apply in your State.

My state is Michigan and yes, state laws do make a difference. However, my question is about the rules applicable to long guns (rifles & shotguns) and handguns (pistols and revolvers). Even in Michigan I believe you can give/swap/sell long guns between private individuals without much of anything. Handguns, no way...the law is specific to handgun transactions however they transpire.

I'll b e learning soon about long guns as I acquire another Trap shotgun...it will almost have to be private transaction as the models I want are out of production, except for ultra expensive versions in Germany. I want a Valmet version of the Remington Model 32...and my budget does not include Kreighoff.

Yep, for handguns at least, the state does have a record of all my pistols...most of which are target versions. I am very absent minded ya' know...lose stuff all the time.... :-))

Seriously, I've carried weapons with the purpose of life and death, *authorized* no less, like many other veterans here and elsewhere...I take it seriously and suffer bureaucrats not all all.

My idea of **heroes** as one commenter here seems to cite a lot, is that the real heroes are dead, or were severely wounded in carrying out their missions and recognized for it. There are a few of the latter here, one I know for sure. Talk is cheap...the walk is much harder.

CEO-MMP said...

Aridog said...


My idea of **heroes** as one commenter here seems to cite a lot, is that the real heroes are dead, or were severely wounded in carrying out their missions and recognized for it. There are a few of the latter here, one I know for sure. Talk is cheap...the walk is much harder."


You can say that again. Before the Bruins game they brought out the guy who lost both legs in the boston bombing--the one with the famous picture of him showing his mangled legs--and he came out to wave the Bruins flag...and I'm happy he gets to experience a moment like that, but the announcers were going nuts calling him a true American hero.
It kind of offended me.

Chip Ahoy said...

EMD, your new logo is great. Now that's satire.

A few years ago London had a poster with that level of creep built right in.

Kirk Parker said...

jr565,

"I'm with them if its solely about background checks in areas where there are loopholes. Like at gun shows [emphasis added]."

There aren't.

Actually, I mean, THERE AREN'T!!!!!!!!!!! (how do I get blogger to write this in 72-point type?)

How many times do how many of us have to point out that "there is no f'ing Gun Show Loophole" before some of you wake up and realize that what we're saying, and what it perfectly true, is that there is no such thing???

And by "no such thing", I mean this:

1. There are a few jurisdictions where sales at gun shows are regulated more strictly than sales at other places.

2. Everywhere else in the country (and by "everywhere" I mean Every. Frickin. Where.) sales at gun shows follow exactly the same rules as they do everywhere else in that jurisdiction.

3. There are no, zero, nada, kein, pick-your-language-for-no places anywhere in the country where sales at gun shows are regulated less strictly than they are at other locations in that jurisdiction. None! NONE!!!!!!

Ghhhaaaaaaaaaaaack! Please listen and pay attention and learn this!


And note that Aridog's example of the rather unusual situation in MI still doesn't amount to a case where the law for sales at gun shows is lesser than at other venues.

Andy Krause said...

Sometimes the facts help the discussion...
"* A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.[94]"

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

MarkD said...

" Try Wayne LaPierre, the man paid to sell guns..."

Actually, that would be the man paid by five million citizens to protect their right to own guns. That right to assemble peaceably and petition the government really irks the authoritarian hypocrites who want their way, unopposed.

Aridog said...

Kirk Parker said ...

And note that Aridog's example of the rather unusual situation in MI still doesn't amount to a case where the law for sales at gun shows is lesser than at other venues.

What seems unusual? I am uncertain about the law regarding long guns in private person to person transactions, otherwise in any commercial transaction, a background check is required, retail store or gun show or flea market, whatever. No loop hole for any commercial transactions.

As for handguns, a permit with specific background check by the local police department has always been the law in Michigan during my lifetime. I have my purchase and sales copies dating back to the 1960's. It applied even to gifts or private exchanges like parent to son or daughter...and if you bought a gun out of state you were and are required to register it with the police and state....e.g., the later federal laws made that aspect more enforceable.

One thing improved here with the modern laws...you do not need individual purchase permits, gun by gun, if you have a CPL for CCW carry. Previously a CCW permit didn't authorize any purchase...and today it does providing the requisite forms are filled out and filed by the seller and the buyer with the CPL.

What pisses me off with all this bullshit fandango about firearms and permits is that law abiding citizens have always complied with reasonable laws, in fact contributed to enacting even more reasonable laws, albeit more restrictive in some cases, governing purchase and sales. In short, we aren't the problem ...BUT we are the only ones who will comply with any new laws, no criminal element will.