Another False Flag Group?

I always become suspicious anytime someone talks about “building understanding and trust” with the firearms community. That is usually someone who is out to take something from you, but who thinks they’ll have more success being nice about it and fooling you. That’s the vibe I get from these “Evolve” guys, who are hawking this video:

On the surface there’s not really anything objectionable, since I don’t really support people being dumbasses with guns. But I think it’s the idea that they need to get this message the rubes, who clearly don’t know any better, and need their betters to guide them. They fail to recognize our own community has been preaching a safe and responsible behavior for as long as we’ve been a community, and that as a result, gun accidents are at all time lows.

We already have strong evidence that this group is a fraud that’s pushing gun control, given that one of their leaders was out after Sandy Hook lamenting the demise of gun control. We don’t need this group. They are snakes who take us for fools.

33 Responses to “Another False Flag Group?”

  1. Andy B. says:

    To me, the whole video oozes disrespect for gun owners. I can’t believe that anyone will be taken in by it. But then, people seem to see things in a different way from me, lots of times, and I’ve been told more than once that the object of things like this isn’t to persuade yourself, but to persuade morons.

  2. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights.

    Just who is the dumbass here?

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t even think he was around. He was in Paris, wasn’t he?

    • GMC70 says:

      Indeed. I just saw this, and no, he wasn’t around; it was not “his” Constitution (if any one person is key in the drafting of the Constitution, it is Madison). IIRC, he was ambassador to France at the time. However, Jefferson was a major voice in calling for a Bill of Rights.

      • SPQR says:

        Jefferson was a major voice calling for the defeat of the proposed Constitution.

        • Andy B. says:

          I don’t believe that is true. He may have opined about the constitution, in his correspondence from France, but I don’t recall him ever being cited in collections of writings of the Anti-Federalists.

          The constitution was ratified in March, 1789, and Jefferson returned from France in December, 1789, after everything except a Bill of Rights was a done deal. It is doubtful that with the time lag of letters crossing the Atlantic, that he could have taken much part in the give-and-take of the constitutional debates of 1787 – 1789.

          Jefferson supposedly favored a more “states rights” interpretation than the constitution allowed. However like all presidents, he could quote it to his own advantage when that served him (e.g., Kentucky Compromise) or just ignore it if it got in the way of something he wanted to do (e.g., Louisiana Purchase.)

          • Knucklehead says:

            Jefferson pushed Madison to supporting a bill of rights. He was opposed to the constitution without a bill of rights. He was one of the principal US philosophers of individual liberty and constitutional government (despite the glaring issue of slavery). As examples he was the author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom as well as the Declaration of Independence.

            He was a student and frequent and influential correspondent with George Mason who authored the Virginal Bill of Rights. He was a mentor and influential correspondent with James Madison who authored much of the US Constitution (as well as the some of the “anonymous” Federalist Papers advocating adoption of the constitution).

            He was not involved in writing the VA constitution, beyond correspondence with those involved) due to illness. He was not involved in writing the US Constitution, beyond correspondence with those who were, due the fact that he was sent to France to represent us.

            Just an opinion, of course, but it seems to me there is little doubt Jefferson would have been heavily involved in authoring both the VA and US constitutions, as well as the associated bills of rights, if he’d been available. But there was no email or internet in those days and letters took weeks, even months, to go back and forth.

  3. Kendal Black says:

    I’m giving this bunch the benefit of the doubt, until I see more of where they are headed and what else they do. I am a longtime advocate of gun safety myself and tend to see their effort as positive so far.

    The litmus test is going to be whether they go on to advocate for storage and movement restrictions and ‘smart guns,’ or whether they stick to a talking-it-up campaign. The latter is all right. I think it is always acceptable to suggest that your neighbor not be a dumbass, but seldom good to insist on laws that force him to comply with your way of thinking. Extra large soda? Not for me, but I won’t outlaw it for you.

    In fact the gun accident rate has been declining for years, due mostly to talking-it-up campaigns by the NRA and others. The more the merrier.

    declining accidents:

    • Chase says:

      I agree with Kendal Black. If this group is a false flag operation, it’s the first one that I didn’t immediately recognize as one when I viewed their web site. They really have nothing objectionable there.

      This could mean that they aren’t a false flag group. On the other hand, it could just mean that the victim disarmament advocates are getting smarter.

  4. GMC70 says:

    This story tells me all I need to know. More of the same BS, wrapped in a new package. The goal is the same, they just want to soft-pedal it.

    • Alpheus says:

      I haven’t watched the video, and I only skimmed the article, but from what I’ve been reading here, I can’t help but have this thought:

      If, from the article, the goal is to prevent another mass shooting like what happened in Newtown, I can’t help but wonder what focusing on people who bumble basic safety is supposed to do to achieve that end.

      Granted, encouraging people to be safe is good to prevent the occasional accidental shooting, but the fact remains that all the safety training in the world isn’t going to stop someone who deliberately brings danger to those around him.

      Does this observation make this campaign disingenuous? Not necessarily. But it’s enough for me to be suspicious of this organizations’s motives. (If this step doesn’t stop mass shootings, for example, then what’s the next step they are planning to pursue?)

      • Kendal Black says:

        The Newtown crime involves questions of gun storage, on some level, and that is basic gun safety. The guns were accessible to the shooter; it is now clear they should not have been. That is the tie-in I see.

        It is something I blogged about at the time, pointing to the option of off-site storage for those with some sort of difficulty at home. I wrote, “Of course I think you should have guns in the house, and the Second Amendment assures your right to have them, but there are exceptional circumstances in which that stops being a good idea.”

        The next step “Evolve” takes is going to be telling. If they stay on their message as they have framed it, there is little to object to, and a lot of it sounds like things I’ve said: sensible gun handling, safe storage: four rules and a padlock.

        • Knucklehead says:

          Newtown could, perhaps, have been prevented with secure, perhaps offsite storage. It was definitely dangerous to have weapons accessible to a dangerous person like that. The problem becomes who defines what a “dangerous person” is. Federal law forbid anyone who uses a controlled substance from owning or possessing a firearm. Federal law defines marijauna as a controlled substance. I just saw an article about some state or another refusing to issue a concealed carry permit to someone because they were held a perfectly legal “medical marijuana” permit in their state.

          Whatever the diagnostic book of psychiatry is (too lazy to look it up) it defines MANY things as mental illnesses. No doubt some of those make people dangerous. No doubt many more could be used to declare people dangerous. Is every veteran who suffers symptoms of PTSD dangerous? I don’t doubt a lot of gun grabbers think so.

          Unfortunately this is a slippery slope battle. The gun grabbers don’t need to get everything. They don’t need half the cake at any one time. They have power of the press to make the cake seem unpalatable so fewer people want to defend the right to have one’s cake. Those who want you to give up your cake have the legislative power to make seemingly small firearms matters, such as magazines with greater than 7 or 10 round capacity, or stopping to take a leak while transporting a firearm, illegal. They then have the executive power to prosecute those illegalities as vigorously as possible.

  5. Crotalus says:

    Hey, watch it with the “snakes” talk! Some of us like snakes, and don’t want to see them slandered so ;-)

  6. Bryan S. says:

    the name evolve says it all. Stinking progressives who want to evolve our rights into a series of limitations on the people, not on the government.

    • Ken says:

      The Left often describes their ideas as “evolution. ” Which is appropriate enough, since evolution requires death on a species-wide scale to get where it’s going.

      • Ken says:

        Actually, now that I consider it, a true pro-evolution group would OPPOSE gun safety.

  7. CarlosT says:

    There’s already a “gun safety” organization that’s been doing the job for decades: the NRA. How many tens of thousands instructors have they trained over those decades? And how many millions students have those instructors taught to be safe, competent gun owners? A lot more than some pretenders with a YouTube channel.

  8. Brad says:

    Wow, that video is astonishingly insulting.

  9. Sebastian says:

    The video is pretty much what you’d expect if a group like this hired Madison Avenue to try to edumucate the rubes.

  10. Luke says:

    The woman behind this group was interviewed by Tom Gresham this past weekend on Gun Talk. She didn’t seem very genuine, and her answers to his questions seemed extremely uninformed.

    • David says:

      That’s putting it politely. Every time she tried to go back to her talking points Tom reeled her back to the question at hand.

  11. Gunz says:

    Following the school shooting tragedy, Weisser wrote that as soon as the silence ended, “as a gun guy I had no one with whom I could share my shame.” That really says it all. We do not legislate from feelings (or we would have bombed Afghanistan off the map, among other things).

    And the above was what he wrote, published, and promoted. It wasn’t from an off the cuff verbal statement or conversation taken out of context. He had time to prepare and polish his statement, and THAT was what he chose to do, try to promote that false “shame” as a basis on which to create public policy.

  12. Chip says:

    What they call “the code” isn’t all that bad … as long as they accept the idea that a gun that is used for self-defense is “in use” AT ALL TIMES.

    I am withholding judgement for now until I see more of what they do. In their posted FAQ, they claim that “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.”

    The promotion of gun safety – if that’s truly all they support – is not a bad thing. But to promote that without an added desire to mandate it via legislation will be a tall order. Too many people in this country think that if something is “good” it should be mandatory, and if something is “bad” it should be prohibited (which is an awful philosophy for government, IMO.)

    On another note, this video is a bit offensive to me. It seems to portray gun owners as bumbling idiots. And while some gun owners are, indeed, bumbling idiots, the vast majority of gun owners are not. This video could be an attempt to influence people to believe otherwise.

  13. Chip says:

    FWIW, I posted the following comment on their Facebook page:

    Evolve, I have a request for clarification regarding one of your items in the “code,” which states: “I will keep all of my guns unloaded, locked and properly stored when not in use.”

    Before I ask my question, I’m going to presume that in your statement, “locked” means that in order for a firearm to be used, one must physically unlock some device that is either part of the firearm or attached to the firearm, e.g. a padlock or any integrated security system that requires a key (like Taurus firearms have).

    IMO, firearms that are used for self-defense are ALWAYS “in use.” They must be quickly accessible and usable if they are to be useful for such a purpose. Therefore, would you accept the proposition that storing such firearms unloaded and locked is not appropriate, although making sure such firearms are secured (e.g. in a quick-access safe or in an on-body holster) is appropriate?

  14. RP says:

    False flag groups are interesting to me because I often see it as them believing their own lies. Like the NRA only representing gun companies and being out of touch with their membership. They think millions of NRA members are just waiting to jump ship for a “reasonable” group.

    If there was really a market for it, it would happen. Just as there are a segment of people who dont think the NRA goes far enough, so groups came to life to embrace them.

    I’m sure there are some Mark Kelly gun owners out there. But if there were enough to have a real organization, it would happen. And cable news would give them endless airtime.

    • RP says:

      I just want to add one more thought. I think them consistently believing their own lies highlights something interesting.

      Pick out a dim-witted pro-gun yokel who carries his S&W Sigma in an Uncle Mike’s one-size-fits-none holster. Give him a quiz on the state of gun laws…. Is this legal? Is that legal? How do you do this or that transaction legally?

      Then pick out the smartest, best educated anti you know and give him the same quiz. Betcha a dollar the yokel knows his shit way better than the sophisticated anti. The anti-gun narrative is based on lies, distortions, and ignorance to the point where these people don’t know up from down. They just parrot the talking points handed down.

      Of course we have some counter-productive knuckleheads on our side. But overall, I think our base is far more knowledgeable on the issues. And I believe that works to our advantage.

  15. hillbilly says:

    Go to Search “Rebecca Bond.” You will find she gave $2500 to the Gabby Giffords gun control group.

    And yes, she is THE Rebecca Bond, as she lists both “Evolve” and “Architectural Digest” on her LinkedIn page.

    NEW YORK,NY 10011 ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST 1/11/2013 $2,500 Americans for Responsible Solutions

    • Brad says:

      Good job.

      The universe of information and communication available to us today makes the anti-gunners job almost impossible compared to 1994, the last time gun-control efforts crested.

  16. Roger Tranfaglia says:

    I’ve been called a dumbass and worse…..heck I don’t even own one yet……..

  17. Brad says:

    Final nail.

    Check out this charming section of their website.

    Take careful note of the editorializing used in the link descriptions, and some of the sources linked to as well.

  18. Alpheus says:

    I’ve finally seen the video, and while I found it amusing, I couldn’t help but think three things:

    1. Anyone serious about gun ownership will know the Four Rules anyway, and so this video would be almost meaningless to them. If lucky, it will be amusing, but I can easily see why most of you found it insulting. Indeed, I’m wondering why I didn’t find it more insulting myself. (Maybe I’m just tired at the moment…)

    2. While I’ve always dreamed of playing pinata that way, the fact that they have the Founding Fathers do either legitimizes the very behavior they’re trying to suppress…or they are saying that the Founding Fathers are “dumbasses”. While fun, when I think about it, it creates a certain…dissonance…in me…and I can’t help but wonder if they think that the 2nd Amendment is a direct result of the Founding Fathers lacking common sense…

    3. Now that they are trying to illustrate gun safety in this manner, I also can’t help but think that, “Hey, Jefferson was right: with the exception of a few jackasses, most people /do/ treat guns with respect! At the very least, they don’t do what is done in the video!”

    In any case, between actually seeing the video and some of the things pointed out in the other comments, I don’t think I trust the motives of this group….


  1. SayUncle » False Flag - […] Mentioned E.V.O.L.V.E. before. But more evidence they’re a false flag. […]