As Evolve co-founder Rebecca Bond tells it, her org isn’t about taking sides when it comes to guns. She wants to be “a third voice” in the conversation, one with a message of…safety. And that’s it. As she sees it, safety isn’t about one side or the other. It’s a cause everyone – gun grabbers and responsible gun owners alike – have a vested interest in furthering. So Bond’s taking a different tack in getting Evolve’s message out there. Something a little more engaging than the snoozers the NSSF and NRA crank out. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Does it work for you?

NEW YORK, NY – February 14, 2014– Evolve, the gun responsibility organization, today launched its first ad campaign encouraging individuals to take personal responsibility for gun safety. Evolve aims to become the “third voice” in the American gun debate, a conversation that has been gridlocked for decades. Created pro bono by Saatchi & Saatchi New York, the creative work uses humor and satire to encourage responsible use and storage of guns.

“Safety is not a side. Gun owners and non-gun owners live with guns in this country, and we should all be able to have a collaborative conversation about how to think about gun safety,” says Rebecca Bond, Co-Founder of Evolve. “Humor can be a gateway to taking away the defensiveness that is the legacy of these discussions.  We hope to put this conversation on the kitchen table and start talking about it.”

The campaign features a provocative short film directed by the highly acclaimed TV and film director Seth Gordon. It will appear in a number of places online, and portrays Thomas Jefferson and other political leaders and statesmen debating the language of the Second Amendment. After a heated debate, the group decides to remove a crucial “as long as you’re not a dumbass about it” caveat to the amendment. The video – based on the line “It’s the right to bear arms, not the right to be a dumbass” – highlights a number of outrageous examples of careless gun use.

Evolve Co-Founder Jon Bonds adds: ” We want the ‘Dumbass’ concept to catch on in popular culture the way ‘friends don’t let friends drive drunk’ did for safe driving.”

“When we researched the gun debate in America, we saw that it’s become almost impossible to have a thoughtful discussion about gun safety,” said Claudine Cheever, Chief Strategy Officer at Saatchi & Saatchi New York. “What I love about Evolve is that they’re not about taking a side in that debate – they’re squarely focused on promoting personal decisions about gun safety. We believe the work will make people laugh and think.”

The call to action is for American gun owners to sign the Code of Gun Responsibility.  To view the video, click here.   And for more info please visit http://www.takeonthecode.com/

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

152 COMMENTS

      • Well their code says “when not in use.” A pretty plausible interpretation would consider a bedside gun, stored properly when not in the immediate vicinity of the owner, say at night while sleeping, in use.

        • I doubt they’d go for that. I see this as an attempt to frighten people about guns. Not to instill respect or to encourage safe handling, training, etc. Rather its sole purpose is to instill fear of guns as widely as possible in order to make it easier to drum up support for so-called “common sense restrictions”. No more, no less. It’s a flank attack under a false flag.

      • To be fair even on TTAG there’s the “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day” story. Evolve wants to seek the middle-ground? Need to post stories on all dumb-ass gun use including the “protected-class” of gun owners.

        • “Guns don’t “go off accidentally,” they fire every time somebody pulls the trigger.” sounded a lot like a point often hammered home here as well.

      • The other part of their web site I found telling is that they list all the ways the someone was a “dumb ass” with their gun; BUT, no mention of when a gun is used successfully in self-defense. This is my shocked face; Do you think that this web site is really not a true supporter of the right of self-defense or truly supports the second amendment?

        Naw; that would never happen! That a gun-grabber would actually lie about what their true end agenda would be? NAW, can’t be!

      • Guys and gals, don’t get taken in by this. This is typical progressive disingenuity. The subtext of the video and website is that gun owners are dumbasses. Period. Not responsible citizens, not first responders, not sportsmen and women enjoying a pastime no less a person than Jefferson recommended.

        It gets irritating when atheists tell religious people how to interpret their sacred texts, urbanites tell rural folk to use public transportation and the affluent tell the working class how to invest their money. In the academic world, this is called an authority problem. You want to lecture us on gun safety? Show up at the range, fire off more rounds than I do, get NRA certified, then open your big mouth.

        • Here, Here. The NRA already provides all the programs and information private citizens need to know own and use firearms responsibly. They even have a congressional charter authorizing them to do so. The NRA only got involved in politics in the late 60’s when the real dumbasses tried to change the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” Their is no ‘third way.’ This ‘new’ group can stuff it.

        • “The subtext of the video and website is that gun owners are dumbasses. Period.”
          It was worth repeating.

      • Just following a few links on their blog, I got to a few pages run by a sole member of Ceasefire Oregon.

        That, people, is whose side they are really on. The overt attack cost them support so they are trying false flag attacks on our freedoms.

        • Or, my wife, son and I will simply continue to have loaded, safed firearms available for our, and by extension our fellow citizens, self defense.

    • Maybe, but that’s like telling a child not to be naughty, rather than explaining what behavior is correct and acceptable. What has the child learned?

    • It’s a better effort, that’s for sure. If you want to know what they’re really about, just take a look at their “code”:

      “I will keep all my guns unloaded, locked, and properly stored when not in use” – No thanks.
      “I believe that while anyone can own a gun, “real” gun owners use their heads” – What does that even mean? Nice divide and conquer attempt.
      “I will be answerable for every gun I own at all times” Again, what does this even mean?

      The only code I need to know is the 4 rules. That code has everything anyone needs to know about firearms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this outfit was also funded by MAIG somehow.

      • If your gun is not in use, it should be secured. If it is on your hip, or put some place for quick recovery, it is “in use.”

        “I believe that while anyone can own a gun, “real” gun owners use their heads” So? We should ostracize dumbasses. I don’t want stupid f***s at the range with me.

        “I will be answerable for every gun I own at all times.” It means you know where your guns are at all times. You mean to say that you don’t?

        • Many people would consider a locked and secure house or other private residence, that is accessed only by persons familiar with firearms safety, to be “secured.” A gun does not need to be unloaded and locked in a safe in this case. Many jurisdictions have passed laws or tried to pass laws requiring that firearms are kept in a separate safe from the safe in which one stores one’s ammunition, and some go further by requiring that firearms are disassembled in said safe (or multiple safes!). This is the logical, common sense next step to your suggestion that any firearm not in your immediate, physical control must be locked in a safe and unloaded.

          I personally do keep my firearms that aren’t on my person in a locked safe, because I have a wife who knows the safety rules but strongly dislikes firearms and has little actual experience with them, so I prefer that she does not encounter them, and I have a toddler. BUT… in my bedside safe there is a loaded firearm. In my main safe there are a couple of loaded firearms. These are all carry guns and I choose not to unload them every time they enter the safe and reload them every time they leave. I believe this to be safer for my purposes for multiple reasons.

          The main point is that one size does not fit all. Responsibility is PERSONAL, and should not be mandated by the government if at all avoidable. What you end up with is exactly the types of laws I mentioned at top. Laws punish, they don’t prevent. Nearly every study ever on every law ever has shown that they do not have a preventative effect. If somebody is irresponsible, you can use the law to punish them. Do not use the law as a “pre-crime” division to preemptively mandate specific behavior patterns.

          “I will be answerable for every gun I own at all times.” It means you know where your guns are at all times. You mean to say that you don’t?”

          What does “answerable” mean? What if I loan a firearm to a friend so he can use it for a hunting trip. This is fully legal in my state. Explain how I should be “answerable” if something went awry. What if my firearms are stolen? Am I “answerable” for what is done with them? Am I “answerable” if I don’t report that theft within 72 hours? Keep in mind some of the mandatory loss or theft laws that have come up for vote in the past couple of years did NOT give exceptions to this; report within 72 hours of the occurrence of the loss or theft or it’s a felony. An exception might be, “I was traveling for business and did not know they were stolen until I got back” or, “I lost it while camping and couldn’t get to a phone to report the loss for 5 days.” Oh well, tough sh*t, that’s a felony and you’re “answerable” for those guns. What if I buy a used gun private party, which is totally legal in my state, and it turns out the gun was used in a crime by a prior owner. Am I “answerable” for that crime? Even though private citizens are expressly barred from being able to use the NICS system?

          Thanks, but no thanks. At first glance these things might sound like “common sense” ideas, but the asterisks could have serious consequences.

    • I’m the last person who will criticize outreach to the other side, and frankly am tired of the name-calling “RINO!” “Progressive!” “Barack OMao!” that substitutes for reasoned argument on our side.

      But after looking at this video, ask yourself some questions:

      (1) Who is this video aimed at?

      Is it aimed at gun owners? Or is it aimed at those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms?

      (2) Who is the butt of the joke in this ad?

      Is it the Founding Fathers? Is it those who are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms? Or is it gun owners?

      (3) If you had no opinion or knowledge about the subject, which of these would you say to yourself after viewing the ad?

      (a) I am glad that the Framers of the Constitution drafted the second amendment to keep and bear arms, it is an important right that all Americans share.

      (b) The Second Amendment gives the right to own guns to a bunch of dumbasses.

      • I think you have a good read of it here.

        This commercial puts on display the typical leftist narcissist mindset that they are smarter, kinder, and gentler than anybody that has lived before and certainly those old dead white guys in the late 1700’s. So leftists do what they do best….mock and ridicule and attempt to tear down their opponents.

  2. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of not being a dumbass, especially with firearms.

    That being said, who has ever heard of, say, bringing together horse owners and non horse owners for a conversation on equestrian safety? Of bringing pool owners together with non pool owners to discuss pool safety?

    • Funny you should mention that- I work part time as a riding instructor. I absolutely LOVE it when idiots with equestrian experience try to tell me how to teach or how to ensure safety. It’s utterly moronic.

    • As much as I’d like to deport anyone who dislikes the Bill of arights, the grim reality is that we all have to share this country.I’d rather live in a nation where the leftists are considers a docile group of kooks, then a motivated activist movement.

      We may not be able to change their minds, but we can delete their credibility to the unwashed . A lot of folks won’t be able to follow the ‘Molon laabe!’ creed. That doesn’t mean we should abandon the middle ground to the enemy.

  3. So for so good, I think. Let’s see where it goes.

    I don’t know how many times I have had to explain to people that my right to own and firearm doesn’t grant me the right to do whatever I want with it. Shooting people or destroying property, whether by accident or on purpose, HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

    • Yes, shooting people or property has consequences that come after the fact.

      The problem with pretty much all of the current laws about firearms is that those laws are trying to prevent people from having or using firearms.

    • Agreed it should have said when not in use and then defined in use to include carry and bedside duty; or it could have just left it broad and said firearms not utilized for defense.

      • Carry and bedside duty is considered “in use” since they are serving a particular purpose at that moment.

        • My guess is that Evolve has a different view on this that you (and I) do. I haven’t read all their material (and I won’t), but I’m betting they mean locked up and unloaded unless you are actually shooting the gun at the time.

    • I can leave loaded guns around the house, and have, but guess what, my grade school age kids won’t touch them….

      Want to know why?

      Same reason they don’t put things in the electrical sockets, same reason they don’t drink the chemicals from under the sink, same reason they don’t play inside the refrigerator, same reason they don’t touch the stove top, same reason they don’t get the big kitchen knives off the counter, same reason they don’t climb in the fireplace, same reason they don’t play in the street, and the list goes on…

      I don’t hide dangerous things from my kids and attempt to shelter them from the world, I teach them how to interact with the world.

      If one of the kids wants to see a gun or shoot it, all they have to do is ask.

      • Well said.

        This point cuts to the real underlying ’cause’ of the gun control debate: who is in control of whom?

        “They” don’t think we can raise our own children, so there have to be a bunch of laws “they” approve as properly doing so. They don’t think we should have any form of self determination.

        They really, really hate it when we exert ANY form of control over our own lives, whether it’s in the form of gun ownership (for whatever reason), child rearing, property ownership or any of a whole heap of other areas.

    • Oooh, but the New Zealand Government demands that any firearm is fully locked up and secured, with bolt and ammunition locked separately from the rifle, and is never, never, under any circumstances to be considered an appropriate tool to use in the defense of the home, or any occupant thereof.

      I just love the rainbows and unicorns in the cloud cuckoo land our politicians insist we live in. Who am I to disabuse them? If I had the temerity to do this, I would immediately lose my firearms license and all my bang sticks. This is what happens when the right to armed self defense is cancelled.

      I just hope the home invasion fad has passed.

  5. Bah; If there was an epidemic of accidental gun deaths; but according to the CDC, accidental gun deaths for those that are REALLY children; (14 and younger), is at the bottom of the list; below poisoning by drinking chemicals from under the sink, and drowning in bath tubs and buckets.

    As for licensed CC gun owners; we are a fraction of a percent in all areas of being law breakers; including misusing a gun in a way that causes a person to be charged with a crime. Cops break the law at almost 3x the rate; they are charged with a felony crime in all areas, like murder, robbing a bank and being charged with rape, at 1.5%; law abiding gun owners are at 0.05 percent in being law breakers. The general population is at 5%.

    So, it’s just another way by gun grabbers to get the idea out that gun owners are some how being incredibly dangerous in the way we practice our civil right.

  6. I agree people need to be more safe with their firearms. But this borders on anti gun movement propaganda! The government doesn’t need to tell me how to store in keep my guns and be safe that’s part of the freedom of this country is to make that choice for yourself imagine that freedom!

  8. Waste of time and money. Too much time and effort and money being used to address an issue that statistically is very small – gun accidents. Still acts as vilification of gun owners. Does nothing to “further” a discussion about guns.

    • Actually it does a tremendous job of reframing the debate. If gun rights advocates don’t develop a little political savvy, they will be the ones I blame when I can’t buy my next gun. This may not be a pressing issue but putting focus on this rather than unsolvable problems that a large percentage of the country only really think can be addressed with significant federal legislation is a very good thing for gun rights. We’ve been lucky to have the middle on our side mostly for a long time but as the country continues to urbanize we cannot count on it. Smarten up and don’t be an old fogey or your grandchildren won’t have the same rights you’ve been fortunate enough to have.

      That said, for all I know they are some sort of false flag but what’s presented here is reasonable.

      • I was going to look up how to say damnable fool in 7 languages but my research eventually resulted in discovering the concept of trolling so I decided to go with that. If you’re able to buy a gun at all you had better thank all the gun rights organizations that toile restlessly to hold back the encroachment of your rights. These are rights we are talking about, not nuanced political points but hard and fast rights. Your comment is so misguided, absurd and insulting I have difficulty restraining myself from seriously taking you to task.

        • I’m not saying they aren’t rights I’m saying rights are ultimately negotiated in the public arena and your desire to take people to task won’t do any good if you start losing elections. Things have gone ok lately but on the state level a lot of ground is also being lost. A positive humorous message appeals more to the middle and god bless your stubborn ass but we need them one way or another and self serious rants, while appropriate when dealing with certain anti gun efforts, aren’t winning too many hearts and minds in my experience. Paranoia is reasonable in some cases but unless it’s 100% established for god sakes don’t alienate anybody who might vote with you otherwise you’re the fool.

    • +1. Anti liberty gun grabbing group masquerading as (yet another) ‘common sense’ safety group. Fortunately they are completely irrelevant and can only gain traction with other grabbers (who are already impotent). Nice try, but this has ‘civilian disarmament complex tool’ written all over it.

  9. I laughed. Actually it was more of a smile and a chuckle. But Jefferson was right. The 2nd Amendment is a little too long and wordy. The Framers of the Bill of Rights should have just left out the first thirteen words and called it good enough. That really would have saved a whole lot of trouble and bother down the road dontcha think?

    • Absolutely. That would have been perfect. Or word it as being necessary to protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence.

    • That is truly where I thought it was going and when they sprung the other on me I was immediately incensed.

  10. I don’t understand the target audience of this. Are they implying that careless gun owners are leaving guns around and that causes “gun violence”? Or are they trying to target the small number of accidents involving guns? The NRA, Hunter’s Safety, and many other gun training programs all teach safe gun handling. How is this a different viewpoint? Maybe they should focus on the biggest issues related to “gun violence” like gangs and drugs?

    Is their next video going to talk about the right to free speech and not the right to be a dumbass?

  11. You can’t fix stupid. Even with slightly-entertaining YouTube videos.

    If we’re truly concerned with people doing stupid/irresponsible things, how ironic that we rely on YouTube (the end-all-be-all historical register of stupid human behavior) to spread the message.

  12. Another camel nose strategy if you ask me. They’ll just figure out a way to label us all dumbasses and take the guns.

  13. We’re winning. The debate is no longer whether we should have guns, so they’re shifting to the tried and true “we’re just worried about the children” argument for the dumbasses that aren’t paying attention to their real motive.

  14. I agree with Thomas, but I think the NRA should jump behind this. They’ve always been the foremost gun safety advocates, and there’s no reason not to support a humorous take on gun safety and responsible use/ownership. In fact, it brings attention to the NRA’s hard work and advocacy here, and the success in reducing accidental deaths. Supporting these guys in the efforts to bring the number of accidental/negligent deaths to 0 while ignoring the hysterics of the anti crowd would do great things for the perception of the NRA among undecideds.

    • Actually, if the NRA were to embrace this, it could make it harder for “Evolve” to make the pivot to full-on gun grabber mode (their eventual goal, I suspect). Once they’re linked to the NRA, their name would be poisoned to the hardcore anti-gun folks…

      • Or it could poison the NRA brand. I don’t think the membership would be too happy about being called “dumbasses” for not locking their home defense weapon in a safe at night.

    • I’ll give you a pass on naivety this time, but in the future exercise a bit of skepticism when someone lambasts the founding fathers views on liberty and the private ownership of firearms in the name of preventing a miniscule number of accidental deaths with tactics like rendering all firearms unusable for home defense. If I seem harsh, I actually thought you were trolling at first, so please forgive me.

  15. I’m still not feeling it. They’re minding their tongue, but I’m sensing something off. Maybe it was the piñata at the end, but I’m not getting a neutral vibe. At best it’s “gun owners, we know you’re ignorant hicks, but try not to be so stupid”.

    • Yeah. My gut says these guys aren’t really on the side of preserving rights, since everyone in that video with a firearm was depicted as a dumb@ss.

      You could view that video and take away “all gun owners are dumb @sses” without it being a stretch.

  16. I gotta say, I think this is really well done and benefits pro-2A folks by taking the legs out from the Anti’s main argument.

  18. This video should be applied to just about every political issue these days, not just guns.

  19. I keep my shotguns on the top shelf of my closet. One is in a soft case, the other is wrapped in an old sweatshirt because I’m cheap. The ammo is beside the shotguns in a cardboard box. Guess I’m a dumbass.

        • Good answer, not great…

          “Because I have two loaded rifles handy” would’ve been a great answer, but still good.

        • I don’t own any rifles…yet. My dad is trying to sell his mint Mini-14 Ranch Rifle to buy an AR, and if I still have money / it hasn’t sold yet when I visit him in June I’ll take it off his hands. Trying to avoid paper trails on my guns as much as possible, so private sale in Virginia (or family “gift” in this case) is the optimal situation. That’s how I’ve received all of my guns, though Michigan’s ridiculous handgun registry means the man could at least come for my pistols.

          • Tell your dad to keep the Mini!!! Never trade down, and never sell a good rifle to buy a piece of crap.

  20. I bet this group will reveal their true colors in the not too distant future. I’ll wager ammunition they’ll “evolve” to be anti-gun / anti-2A / pro government.

    • The problem is that when Evolve first came out Rebecca Bond had her twitter feed open to the public, and it wasn’t really distinguishable from Shannon Watts, so far as content and lean goes. She locked it down within the first week of the news getting out, I really wish I had gotten screen shots at that time.

    • I have to admit that when MAIG was first announced I was a bit non-plussed by the pro-gun people railing against it. To be fair, I was still new to the whole “freedom” thing, growing up in Maryland and all.

      But as MAIG has really shown themselves to be MAG (Mayors Against Guns), or perhaps the more appropriate MAIGMAGI (Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Making All Guns Illegal), I see that many people had more foresight than I did. If the organization was about enforcing existing laws and actually punishing offenders, I’d be all for that. But alas, this is not what they are.

      BTW, “existing laws” refers to locking up people who use guns to commit crime. I’d repeal the NFA and Brady act in a heart beat. Trying to buy a gun should not be a crime.

  22. Does it work for me? No. Neither does their code. I have signed enough unnecessary things already in the name of exercising a right.

  23. I can appreciate, ”We want the ‘Dumbass’ concept to catch on in popular culture the way ‘friends don’t let friends drive drunk’ did for safe driving.” That’s a good idea, and if they have the marketing and production know how to make it happen, great!

    What I don’t appreciate on the other hand is this idea there needs to be a 3rd voice, as if the existing 2nd amendment groups support dumbasses. Safety and training is a truly prolific component of what the NRA does.

    • “Safety and training is a truly prolific component of what the NRA does.”

      Yes. And safety and training is of absolutely zero interest to the civilian disarmament movement, unless required training makes it more difficult for the little people to keep and bear arms. How can there be any meaningful conversation between gun owners, who have a genuine interest in gun safety, and grabbers, to whom “gun safety” means limiting legal firearm ownership to government officials and their cronies? Further, as others have pointed out, if we want to learn more about gun safety, why should we have any interest in the advice of people who don’t know firearms?

      There is no “conversation” to be had with people determined to strip us of essential civil liberties.

  24. You’ll notice that they immediately turn the Founding Fathers into jackasses. They say they are not political, but tow the liberal line of “males are idiots” and the Founding Fathers were a bunch of morons.

    I like the overall idea, but do not believe they are apolitical. Sorry: No sale.

    • Wait a minute… you’re right! Hey… they didn’t have bounce houses back then either.

      THIS IS PHONY!

  26. I can’t say I disagree with the message. Should gun owners not be dumbasses? Of course. Are some of them dumbasses? Yes. Should they learn how to not be a dumbass? Sure. Should they be called out when they are being a dumbass? Absolutely, yes.

    However, the conclusion that some people will reach is problematic. There is a far-too-widespread belief that if something is good, then it must be mandatory and perhaps even subsidized. If something is bad, it must be prohibited. Whether something is defined as mandatory or prohibited, the result is the same – government gives itself power to make the choice for everyone, and then proceeds to enforce its decision via coercion (via law enforcement using physical force against people).

    The solution is personal responsibility. But personal responsibility does not magically appear because it is mandated by a bunch of politicians. It comes about because a culture develops that not only supports personal responsibility but insists upon it. Deferring all decisions to a government, and then accepting whatever they say as “good” or “bad,” is the abdication of personal responsibility.

    None of this will matter to some of the anti-gun folks, because their goal is not “safety while using guns.” Their goal is gun prohibition, because they think that the guns and people who use them are evil.

    So while I basically agree with the message, I think it will be misinterpreted (or properly interpreted?) as a call for regulation (not appropriate) and will be ignored by those (gun prohibitionists) who are not actually interested in safety, but instead want to have control over other people.

  29. “Do the founders of Evolve shoot? How can you talk about something you haven’t done?

    Evolve is made up of both gun and non gun-owners. We are all affected by gun violence, whether we shoot or not.”

    What does any of this have to do about “gun” violence? I smell a rat.

  30. Terrible anti-gun. Indeed, as other above said, tries to paint gun owners as dumb-asses and hence regulation is needed to prevent us being as such. We will see more of this. I call BS.

  32. Evolve:
    Who are your top 10 donors?
    How come your “gun safety” website doesn’t actually talk about gun safety?

  33. Does anyone on this forum not understand there is an organized, private-public agenda to disarm what’s left of middle class America? It’s not a left-right issue, a public safety issue, or constitutional-unconstitutional issue…to say anything less is to ignore the elephant in the room.

    • I’d say the people on this forum get that quite well.

      Disagree with one point, though. It IS a constitutional issue, since the protection against this sort of thing is supposed to be there.

  35. It’s a false flag operation. End of story.

    When I want to know something about gun safety, I’ll refer to a pro-gun org that actually knows something about the subject matter. I won’t be seeking gun safety tips from any “for the children” idiots.

    • Right. Do they think, “Hey, I’ll bet NO ONE in the gun owner’s group has EVER thought about safety. We better do some education.”

      Their fail is the same as it always is. New laws will cause law breakers to ‘comply?’ New safety video will cause dummies to comply?

      Hint for Evolves deeper thinkers: Those dumbasses to which you refer are ALREADY BREAKING THE SAFETY RULES.

  39. This is simple… first pose as a ‘neutral voice’ that is the voice of reason. Then slowly take sides. When gun owners don’t agree, just say that “see these gun owners are extremists because they don’t even agree with the voice of reason”, thereby declaring them dumbasses and justifying the anti-gun stance all in one step.

    Sorry Evolve, you aren’t very evolved after all.

  40. Ah…ok since I am sure Robert has an image to maintain and Evolve has a law firm lined up to threaten “libel” anytime someone calls b.s….

    Let me remind newer gentle readers (and sockpuppets you know who you are…) that we’ve already exposed these pathetic nitwits for the pr hacks and (likely just my opiion) bloomie funded proglibtards common in any Alinsky commujity organizer playbook…(OFA, OSI, MDA…). http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/coonan/

    • yeah that pretty much covers all the bases right there. too bad the commenters above who said “I can support this” didn’t know these facts.

      • yea but if you are new to guns or the politics and coming here for the truth we might need to refresh ” lessons learned about the players” on the anti- gunner side if only because the blog format does not lend itself to cross referencing past articles…

        iterations what reporters call ” inside baseball” right?
        And that reminds me of a fond memory…”program! program! cant watch the game without a program…!

    • RF can’t be held liable for libel since the court’s recently found that blogger’s are protected by the same right’s as journalists.

  41. It’s a little on the nose, but otherwise sticks to their stated goals.

    With regards to the locked and unloaded thing, I don’t really understand their view, or the view of some commentors here. I think the issue is, define locked and unloaded. Locked away doesn’t have to mean inaccessible, there are plenty of quick-access safe options that you can operate in the dark. So in that respect I don’t see the issue that some here are raising. If you’re concerned, practice until it’s second nature, which you should be doing anyway. Likewise, if I am intending a gun to be used in the event of a home invasion, it will not be unloaded. It won’t have one in the chamber, but there will be a loaded magazine in the gun ready to go. If it is properly secured, having it loaded or not is irrelevant.

    The reality is that kids are kids. They are going to get into things that they shouldn’t, and you have to be prepared for that. You wouldn’t leave Clorox within baby reach, you shouldn’t leave a loaded gun around an unsupervised 3-yr old either. I think that gun owners would be doing themselves a disservice to castigate this group because it doesn’t 100% agree with absolutely everything they believe. Will people who are vehemently pro-gun-control take the message too far? Absolutely. But it doesn’t matter, they are going to push for total prohibition anyway. If gun owners can normalize ownership and push the pro-safety message, it will be much tougher for legislatures to push through useless bills because they won’t have the support of the “middle ground”.

    • Kyle, have to disagree with your logic. “If gun owners can normalize ownership and push the pro-safety message, it will be much tougher for legislatures to push through useless bills because they won’t have the support of the “middle ground”.” What exactly do you mean by gun owners “normalizing ownership”? Its not gun owners who are marginalizing gun ownership. As far as pushing the gun safety message….the NRA, GOA, and nearly every gun political group has been doing this for decades. It makes no difference because its not the issue. An agenda to deprive Americans the right to own firearms exists and you can compromise and compromise until those rights are meaningless, which seems to be the tactic being (successfully)employed.

      • I don’t see promoting safety to a wide audience (assuming that this does what they want it to) as a compromise. Yes the NRA has been doing it forever, but they have been ineffective at disseminating that message beyond people who already pretty much agree with them. It costs nothing to let another group take a crack at it. In terms of normalizing ownership, I mean putting a human face on it. Gun-control advocates have pretty much been dominating the conversation in terms of defining who gun owners are. They have tarred everyone by calling us gun nuts, kooks, baby-killers, you name it. It’s not true, and we all know it, but that’s the message that implicitly gets across in the media. If people have to put their friendly neighbor’s face on gun ownership, I think that significantly alters the nature of any subsequent debate in our favor.

        • Kyle, you’re missing the big picture, the gun control group controls the media. It doesn’t matter what image gun owners may or may not want to convey. The media will continue doing it’s job against the 2nd amendment in its propaganda campaign.

    • Kyle, if they’re preaching common sense they don’t have to define locked and unloaded. Gun owners know what they mean. Anti-gunners can point to us and interpret us into even more absurd scenarios. Either way, fail.

  42. And since I am just another lowly citezen exercising my 1A right as I recall they sucked in the naive? marketing manager into persuading his boss into letting him be quoted with the “dumbass” comment so Evolve could claim bipartisan support from a (niche? failing? gunmaker with creds in the biz but poor common sense about gungrabbers fidelity…)

    Kind of a Metcalf moment…hope the MAIG $ was worth it… is what my tin foil hat friend would say…)

    Anyway. Entertaining to see the left flail so obviously here….again. Didnt they remember that saying “on the innertubz everyone knows you are a dog…”).
    and
    “Mock them!” – the Blogfather

  43. Does the video “public service announcement” work for me?

    No.

    “When we researched the gun debate in America, we saw that it’s become almost impossible to have a thoughtful discussion about gun safety,” said Claudine Cheever

    That’s because gun grabbers use “gun safety” as a ruse to eliminate gun rights. Stop trying to infringe our rights and we can have a great discussion about real safety.

  44. It’s sounds like the “Good cop, bad cop” game…

    The bad cop didn’t work, now the good cop is trying to level with us and be our friend…

    Give me a break.

  45. Oh, that’s just sly propaganda. The message is clear: if you’re into guns, you’re probably stupid. Sign THIS, Bond.
    I’m pointing to my crotch, just so’s you’ll know.

  48. You can hardly blame us for not trusting anyone. Hell, even YankeeMarshal unleashed a video today declaring that nobody really needs more than five shots, when you get right down to it.

  49. Sorry. I’m automatically leery of anyone who trots out the “common sense” terminology, as they’ve done here. “Common sense” now means “statist”.

    Given EVOLVE’s past facebook/twitter posts, I think this is a false flag.

  50. Yes good thing accidental deaths from firearms are so statistically rare we should be worrying about pools more.

  51. They had me until they handed a blunderbuss to a blindfolded Benjamin Franklin (though nailing that pinata was a pretty good shot, all things considered). Portraying our founding fathers as a bunch of morons will not help us in any constitutional argument.

    We are better off letting the NRA handle gun safety education. I don’t trust any safety lectures from non-gun owners.

  52. The video was perfectly fine until the end when they had the founding fathers act like idiots, shooting the gun at a piñata, playing around with their rifles irresponsibly. The subtext was that the founding fathers were dumbasses, thus invalidating the Bill of Rights. As many others are stating, this group is more anti-gun than pro-gun. It won’t be too long before they are advocating that most firearms should be banned from civilian use and ownership and the ‘scary’ ones should only be used for law enforcement and the military.

  53. We do need to acknowledge the persistence of the organized left and the gullibility of the well meaning low info voters this is targeted towards. Sort of like MDA propagandizing to the typical PTA mommies on Fakebook who are desperate to be part of the cool kids and naturally respond to the subconscious meme here of “we are all smarter than the knuckledraggers” and “its for the children”.

    And some folks NEVER get it until mugged by reality but there is a much wider and I sense growing base of those hip to this who have been marketed to kids who “get” the faux sincerity and thought control that the elderly proglibtards dish out in their own blindness…having drunk their own bathwater for years they are euther missing it…or realizing that once burned (Hope and Change) those wiser info consumers are not buying it and looking elsewhere for the facts…and the Truth About Guns. Here we dont pretend “To know whats best for the Little People”. Or it takes a village. Or all your children belong to all ou US…And What Difference Does It Make

  55. Gee whiz. Boy, are they ever “evolved”.

    A friend, now deceased, used to say about guns: “Can’t we all just evolve”?

    “We already did,” I would counter. Yeah, I know. Not necessarly so…

    His father, I gathered, has shot himself. SO? Lacking a gun, he would have used a tailpipe.
    Another one: “Can’t we all just get along”? “Apparently not,” I would say. “That’s why we need guns.”

  57. From their FAQ

    Problem #1
    Is Evolve for or against bans on assault rifles and standard capacity magazines?

    Evolve does not address legislative issues, but instead focuses on exerting social pressures in order to persuade individuals to voluntarily adopt the most responsible gun safety behaviors in the context of their lives and communities.

    How do you support the 2a and say this drivel. This sounds like, we support the 2a…but… we are happy to see your guns taken away.

    Problem #2
    The murder rate is falling to lowest levels in decades; why is Evolve concerned?

    Over 30,000 U.S. deaths and 100,000-plus accidents per year by firearms from criminal, suicides, and accidents is an unacceptably large number.

    When you use bogus statistics copied out of the brady campaign and other gun grabbing groups — you have completely and totally lost me — please STFU

  58. Whoever’s funding Evolve is playing a long game.

    This isn’t about advocating any specific policy measure — they’re too sophisticated for that. It’s about poisoning the well against gun owners and against the second amendment.

    If the US Supreme Court favors the recent rulings in the 9th and 7th Circuits (holding that there’s an individual right to bear arms outside of the home,) then constitutionally they won’t be able to attack that core right. (There may still be arguments over banning modern tactical rifles and standard capacity magazines, and while that’s still a fight we must win, that will be an argument over what *kinds* of guns you’ll be able to keep and bear, not over the legitimacy over keeping and bearing arms at all.)

    No, once the current battles are resolved one way or another in the Courts, the next fight will be for all the marbles. It will be about amending the Constitution. The only way to win that one is to have the people on your side. You don’t win that kind of fight with a single campaign.

    So: I suggest that Evolve’s role is to help with a media campaign to undermine how gun owners are viewed in this country.

  59. You can substitute just about any word for gun and have the same result. Try car, airplane, cellphone, ipad, ect. No, the 2nd Amendment protects us from a government that exceeds it powers as laid out under the Constitution. Simple, not hunting, not target shooting, not even self protection. Read the Dec of Independence to understand what was undertaken.

  60. I agree with the message they are trying to send. That being said, I do not agree with how they send the message.

    But the Constitution gave people the right to be a “dumbass”. However, there are consequences to being a “dumbass” and you will pay them. This could be construed to mean that there should be an intelligence test before ownership of a firearm or even citizenship. This could cause an issue potentially.

    I only object to the fact that the video portrays the Founding Fathers in the light they do. Everything they wrote evolves from self responsibility and reason. I am afraid that there is potential for the way the message is portrayed to be misconstrued and even turned around.

    I may be over reaching and a bit paranoid in criticizing the vehicle of the message but I feel it needs to be said.

  61. This spot, at least, I’m ok with though I remain suspicious of the organization over all. Based on this, I’m willing to give them more time and see what they do.

    The “dumbasses” clause still pretty much exists, phrased as “when convicted of felony crime, you lose some of your rights.” The problem, in practical application, is how easy it is for a given special interest group to make their opponents felons by buying the correct politicians.

  62. Yeah, I watched the video finally and I agree with the folks who are saying it is veiled anti agit-prop. By having the founders debating the 2nd amendment and by portraying a anti-dumbass (common sense, where do we keep hearing that phrase?) addendum to the 2nd amendment, the makers of this video are saying exactly what the antis are saying: The 2nd amendment is subject to ‘common sense’ restrictions.

    Secondly, the gun owners in the video are portrayed much the same way as Homer Simpson in the episode where he got a gun, using the gun liberally to do things like turn off the TV or open a beer.

    In short, Thomas Jefferson was as right in this video as he was in his idealistic youth.

  63. Folks, I’ve had my suspicions about S&S/Evolve before. I believe this is a massive con job. Very well planned and executed. We and the antis are being played off against one another by these people, to the detriment of both sides. To wit:

    o The Evolve message is cleverly constructed to appeal to both sides’ interests, but satisfies neither.
    o The Evolve site itself looks like it was conceived and developed as a class project by a midwestern high school.
    o The S&S site lists some extremely vague accomplishments that are impressive on their face but difficult (if not impossible) to verify.
    o Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY in either organization professes any familiarity with firearms or shooting sports.
    o The organizer of this effort is an identified gun-hater. I do not for one second believe that she has had a “Come to Jesus” moment regarding the RKBA.
    o The timing is interesting. MDA’s credibility is waning, so this lot reappears. Amazing coincidence…

    In short, there is no substance under the surface. I’ve seen some pretty good scams in my time. My “Spidey Sense” is tingling. I sense that this is one.

    These people realize there’s money and power to be had from the 2A/RKBA controversy. They have studied MAIG’s, MDA’s and other anti- (and pro-) groups’ makeup, supporter base and tactics. They admit that. And in discovering that, they also must have identified the funding sources for the groups. And they’re going to try to tap into that for a piece of the action. There’s the incentive. Get the Mighty Midget to start cutting checks.

    I for one do NOT trust them. Just my opinion. I will continue monitoring them and waiting. Don’t count me in.

  64. “When we researched the gun debate in America, we saw that it’s become almost impossible to have a thoughtful discussion about gun safety,”

    That’s because responsible firearms owners have codified the Four Rules as the bedrock of gun safety. Which implies that if you want a more thoughtful discussion than “Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.” you’re probably already biasing the discussion toward gun-locks, mandatory gun safes, verification of said safety measures, “smart” guns, etc… In otherwords, the topics most pro-gun advocates have already deemed all-too readily abused by certain factions.

    I appreciate the catchy ‘don’t be a dumbass’ slogan as it tries to inject a common sense meme interpretation of the already existing rules, as we’ve already seen, common sense… isn’t.

  65. No, it doesn’t work for me. I got about 25 – 30 seconds in and turned it off. Please, TTAG, don’t give this gun control group the same amount of press you give Morons Demand Action.

    • REvolve is struggling to build an identity and fan base. They’re clueless about both. MDA knew exactly how they wanted to pitch their grift, and how to do it. Remember, Shannon was a professional PR flack, Becky is a wanna-be marketer.

  67. I can’t even find the basic rules of gun safety on their website. If the idea is to educate the public, they should at least provide links to trusted resources.

    • Why would they want to do that? None of these groups really care about “gun safety”. If they were really about “gun safety” and “awareness” and “evolving the conversation” then they’d be offering more than just agitprop, ridicule and scorn.

  68. IT’S A TRAP.

    Consider: takeonthecode.com is “managed” by a woman named Rebecca Bond. Rebecca lists as one of her EVOLVE colleagues one Claudine Cheever. Claudine has a twitter account, “@auntieclaudine”. Do a twitter search for “auntieclaudine gun” and browse the tweets. Since she’s liable to protect them after being exposed, here are a few:

    Claudine Cheever ‏@auntieclaudine Apr 18
    Powerful crystal clear from Gabby Giffords. . .A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip http://nyti.ms/Z4rdlU

    Claudine Cheever ‏@auntieclaudine 1 Feb 2013
    the right to own a gun vs the right for a six year old to have his life. #unequalrights http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/show-the-nra-what-real-patriotism-looks-like …

    Claudine Cheever ‏@auntieclaudine 18 Jan 2013
    Please read+add your support to this letter on gun control written by 87 heads of schools in NYC. #neverforgetsandyhook http://hosagv.org

    Claudine Cheever ‏@auntieclaudine 16 Jan 2013
    “Repugnant and cowardly.” Yep, sounds like gun lovers! NRA Ad WH Response: ‘Repugnant And Cowardly’ http://huff.to/UQukbI via @HuffPostPol

    Seriously, these guys are anti-2A statists. Dan – please call this out!!

  70. I thought the ad was very funny, I LOLd.
    BUT as soon as they start using “responsibility” and their intention of their word “dumbass,” I started to lose interest. Their platform doesn’t make enough distinction between ‘irresponsible’ and ‘gun owner.’ I feel the average UN-intelligencia can still assume that being a gun owner is being a dumbass.

  71. Wow, where to begin…portraying the forefathers as hypocrites in the final scene implies that they were actually dumbasses to begin with. Or worse, at least implies that the considerations made when crafting the amendments were taken lightly. I’m not on board with that.

    Secondly…I see the issue as black and white. Negligent discharge? Someone’s hurt, or exposed to danger? Your a criminal. You’re hurt or killed? It’s Darwinism in all it’s glory.

    Safety and gun rights go hand. To see that moron with the hi-point in the Video from Oakland made my blood boil. That is what’s wrong with the country.

    I love the back-door “sign this pledge” bulls&it too…

  72. I told them by email my reservations about the locking, etc. part of their code and asked for clarification.
    I did this when TTAG first mentioned EVOLVE what, several months ago?
    No word of reply yet.
    The video is funny though. Might be useful in a beginners NRA pistol safety course.

  74. Mz Bond and these Evolve “people” are precisely the dumbasses that should never possess any type of weapon. Period. Full stop. Yet another pack of leftards screeching about things they have absolutely no knowledge of.

  76. It’s a diversion tactic by Leftists. They almost get away with it, but they couldn’t stop themselves from screwing up right at the end. Notice how they shoot the pinata. They’re trying to send the message that the Founding Fathers were, in their words, dumbasses. They’re trying to insinuate that the Founding Fathers understood the concept of dumbassery, but we have evolved to further understand what constitutes a dumbass, such that the pinata shooting would qualify today but not back then. More of the “The Founders never envisioned semi-automatic rifles” malarkey. Furthermore, because they show the Founding Fathers being dumbasses, the allude that even they should not have had guns, ergo the whole thing is moot.

Comments are closed.