Previous Post
Next Post

Mark Glaze courtesy

Michael Bloomberg’s personally-funded gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety states that “Everytown is a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities. Gun violence touches every town in America. For too long, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.” And they use high profile shootings (think Gabby Giffords, Aurora, Newtown) to push their agenda. There’s just one problem: those “common-sense” steps they’re demanding Congress take will do exactly nothing to stop “gun violence” and prevent mass shootings. We already knew this, of course, but now the former head of their organization, Mark Glaze (who left that position on Friday), is confirming that analysis . . .

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Glaze said the movement hasn’t solved one of its signature problems: Many mass shootings wouldn’t have been stopped by tighter regulations proposed by gun-control advocates, even if they might have prevented other gun crimes.


The most attention on gun control comes after mass shootings – just look at the post-Newtown push and the brief attention paid to the issue after the Memorial Day weekend shootings in Isla Vista, Calif. Yet virtually none of the solutions gun-control groups are pushing would have prevented any of the massacres that capture public attention.

“Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

The constant cry from Everytown is that the tragedy of the day could have been prevented if only their restrictions to gun ownership had been implemented. That’s the impetus behind their now completely debunked list of “school shootings” since Newtown — all of those events (even the bogus ones) could have been averted if Congress had just enacted new laws after Adam Lanza did his worst.

The truth, however, is that gun control isn’t the answer. The solutions being proposed by Michael Bloomberg and his moms and other minions wouldn’t have saved a single life. And they may have put countless more Americans in danger.

Gun control doesn’t work, and those pushing hardest to enact those new laws apparently know it. They just don’t care.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Gun control will work, because it’s purpose is to disarm mainstream America. It won’t solve any crime problems, because that is not its purpose.

    • Exactly.

      Criminals continuing to have and use guns just helps maintain the march to disarmament.

      It’s obvious we can’t disarm criminals – never could; never will.

      But they sure as hell will try to disarm *you* and chances are that they’ll be a lot more successful there in the very long run.

    • +1 The goal is protecting the government from the public, in case the government ever gets to the point where the people, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, come to the conclusion that the evil is no longer tolerable.

    • +1. The current SCOTUS ruling is just another of countless rulings to come, that are seemingly harmless and based on common sense, that will someday require the formation of a federally administered service for citizen’s firearms to sort out the complex firearm regulations. They will have the ability to grow in power as the EPA did. Then we are infringed and soon after lose our guns. I have been accused of imagining things.

    • Yup. Government’s nature is to grow and control, each perpetuating the other. Stopping crime is not nor will it ever be, a priority.

  2. “They just don’t care” Yip, pretty much sums it up. Now tell me something I didn’t already know..

  3. Are the RATS deserting a sinking ship? Stand strong POTG…the SCOTUS BS decision showed how tenuous the whole thing is.

  4. I have come to the realization that the gun control, really gun ban, movement is not as stupid as we think. I believe they deliberately propose the least effective measures to gradually ramp up gun bans.

    For example they know that long guns aren’t used very often to murder people but if you ban so-called assault rifles and it doesn’t stop mass shootings it allows them to argue for more stringent regulations. The next move is to ban standard capacity magazines. When that doesn’t work then they will argue to ban all semiautomatics; when that doesn’t work then they will ban all handguns; when that fails they will want to ban those “sniper rifles; and finally those evil shotguns will have to go. The goal isn’t to stop crime; it is to take away guns private citizens. If anything their objective is to empower criminals who will do to all of society what they have done to the ghetto.

    When I was in Nova Scotia a couple of weeks ago I visited an historic site called Grand Pre’. It was center of French Acadia in the 18th Century. Just before the Acadians were removed to become Cajuns, the Crown took away their firearms. We talk about Lexington and Concord to be the incubating act that led to the Second Amendment. I now think It goes back farther to the Crown’s gun confiscation in Acadia. It is almost a certainty that the Founding Fathers were aware of the Crown’s actions in Nova Scotia when the wrote the Second Amendment.

    • If you want to have a real effect, you start with the most severe problems and work your way down.

      If you want to control every aspect and enact a complete ban without having to sell a complete ban from the start, you work from the bottom up, and each time the laws are an ineffective failure, as they’re designed to be, you step up another rung.

  5. Correct, there is your answer “They just don’t care”.

    Gun control came about because someone got mad (probably a mom or dad that lost someone in a gun battle or bank heist), and decided to try to limit our access to them. Remember, this was back when you could buy a Thompson sub machine gun through mail order.
    Ever since that day the movement has been to try and limit our access to guns through fear tactics and supposed common sense, that is actually senseless. They use fear and grief to sway the moms into supporting gun control because face it, moms ARE tired of their kids dying needlessly and i get that, but i will not surrender my right to own firearms just because some rich joker decides to use fear and grief to further his cause.

    • Actually gun control started shortly after the Civil War by democrats who didn’t want the slaves to own guns so that their KKK buddies could murder them without worrying about getting shot.

      • Except that shortly after the Civil War, the Democrats didn’t control anything–remember? the South was under military occupation until something like 1876. And the Republicans were firmly in control of the North. The oddly restrictive Texas handgun laws were actually an outgrowth of the carpetbag Reconstruction government, which didn’t want the newly-enfranchised blacks intimidated by gun-totin’ unreconstructed rebels. Or so I have read (I think it was here as a matter of fact)

  6. “the SCOTUS BS decision showed how tenuous the whole thing is.” This is precisely why Obozo nominated those two treasonous women to SCOTUS. He needed them there for precisely this issue. Elections have consequences. The treason party (democrat) works longterm. They never abandon an issue. They just wait it out.

  7. This work seems to burn people out pretty fast.

    I’d love to see a list of all the ‘gun control’ groups that have fallen by the way side and all the big names that came and went with foundation cash.

    Foundation cash is another matter.

    We study groups like the NRA that are successful, but I am interested in the numberless ‘gun control’ groups that appear make some bold announcement then disappear.

    Remember Paul Helmke? Does Brady even exist anymore? What about that Jared Loughner look a like Lad Everitt? Maybe I miss the pre-Bloomberg good old days.

    I wonder when Monsanto Mommy Shannon Watts will be hanging up her shingle and go back to being um you know… a house wife…

    Baby i’ll love you till the money runs out

    • They burn out because they’re not as dedicated and don’t believe in it with a true passion. It’s usually a knee jerk reaction to a specific event. They usually try to pass it off as something “the public” wants but it’s always someone like bloomberg just buying attention. They don’t realize how passionate our side is and always fail to match that passion.

      NRA had a great slogan at their show this year. It was to the effect of “Bloomberg is one guy with millions..we’re millions with our $25 bucks”. Thought that hit the nail on the head. If you haven’t joined I got a discount link with my last ruger

  8. They are correct in that they have a messaging problem. However, they can’t spot the cognitive dissonance in their own ranks.

    They say they want to prevent gun violence, but they also actively move on anything that will restrict gun ownership. Reducing gun ownership doesn’t reduce gun violence, but it is central to their actions because it is the standard new left way of doing things. “We are going to take things away from you because you might use it irresponsibly.”

    The believe is that if we ban something, it can’t be used for harm anymore. It’s not just guns, it’s transfats or high capacity sodas, or whatever their issue is.

    They want to be everyone’s mommy but don’t understand why everyone doesn’t want that. This is why their message fails. I am a grown ass adult and don’t need someone else how to tell me how to live my life. I think more and more Americans are feeling the same pressure. The pressure to give up control of their lives to groups that really have no business telling anyone what to do.

    Hell, even their mouthpiece, Ms. Watts, is disingenuous. Her kids are adults as I recall. It’s not like she is still responsible for the protection of her own kids.

  9. What is the real agenda? Perhaps that little economic situation of inequality of wealth Mr. B? Lets ensure that the populace has no guns and the wealthy can maintain their private armies? Wealth today controls the government, and we have little voice in government today. We may never know the real agenda being plotted by the boys in the back room, but I hazard to say that the agenda is far from ‘gun violence’. Yep conspiracy theory #99.

    • Steve, its no conspiracy theory that the PTB want the average Joe disarmed. The agenda couldn’t be more blatant.

    • They probably run a plugin that removes stop words from their WordPress slugs. This is done for SEO purposes, and they’re not likely to change it now.

  10. Blows my mind that he can simultaneously say the message is worthless, the government can’t be trusted and finish with a “I know we will prevail.”

    So much brain damage.

  11. “Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

    Allow me to translate: “People aren’t buying our line of sh!t, so we need to find a more convincing line of sh!t.” He tacitly admits they have been lying to move public opinion in the direction they want, but shows no remorse. No moment of self-reflection, no shame. I see it with my own eyes, but I still can’t quite understand it at a gut level.

    • Most anyone with a sense of morality will not get how you can do that.

      Think of a con man. Someone who lies to people, earns their trust, and then betrays that trust in order to get something for themselves. I could never do that. Not because I can’t lie convincingly, but because my sense of morality would not allow me to outright betray someone who I have convinced to trust me implicitly.

      I’m the same way with stealing. I can’t get past the thoughts of what someone must have gone through to earn something or how an object might have some sentimental value to them. Hell, I can’t steal pens at a restaurant because I know what an incredible inconvenience that becomes for the servers!

      If you don’t have that moral conviction, then it’s no problem. Having worked with a criminal element for awhile, I’m very aware there are plenty of people who never pause for a second about how their actions impact others. Did I just compare Everytown/MAIG/MDA to criminals? No, not at all! I just said they think like criminals I used to deal with.

      • Good and valid thoughts. It seems there are two types, here. There are the would-be oligarchs, who are probably honest with themselves regarding their desire to subjugate others for their own selfish benefit. These are probably more like common criminals, just operating on a larger scale. I guess we can put people who willingly work for the oligarchs in the same category. Then there are true believers who think they work for the good of others, and that their leftist vision of utopia would be such a wonderful end that getting there is all that matters. If they have to lie to get the unenlightened to go along with the program, that’s OK. I guess both share a total disregard for the autonomy of others. But for the believers to never pause to wonder why they have to lie to get others to go along, to never for a second doubt their own superiority? Truly amazing. In some ways I have more respect for the common criminal.

  12. If this were a photo caption contest, my submission would be, “What would Wiley E. Coyote do?”

    It is a mistake to assume competence is a requirement to board the Bill Paying Billionaire gravy train. Our friends in the Civilian Disarmament Complex have demonstrated their lack of comprehension of the technical aspects of firearms, the effects of bans such as gun free zones and the ability of state governments to curtail civil rights. They consistently act as if gun owners in this country are a small but mysteriously powerful minority. The nature of causal relationships is beyond their grasp. Their antics remind me of a never ending Three Stooges skit. They get away with it because of the financial backing of the economic elite. Without Bloomberg, Soros, Gates and their peers, people like Glaze and Watts would be reduced to waving their arms and shouting at strangers while pushing their shopping carts down the street.

  13. Alright, who took Mark Glaze shooting?

    Fess up, now!

    That’s one conflicted grabber, and his analysis is right. How ’bout that!

    • Exactly! That is why we must NEVER give up trying to persuade others. We never know when the light bulb may turn on , even in a gun-grabbers head.

  14. Damn straight. The reason it won’t work is for several reasons.

    First, they don’t have a uniform ideological platform. Social idealists at the bottom of their dysfunctional totem pole are already holding hands, singing Kumbaya and thinking “if only we can get enough people to think happy thoughts, maybe the boogeyman will go away.” Meanwhile, globalist power mongers at the top are just salivating at the opportunity for enough of these leftist chowderheads to buy into that “We Are the World” crap so that the globalists can finally pull the rug out from everyone not in their tight little circle, thereby gaining, what they perceive to be, a lasting measure of control over humans with obviously lesser reason to live than themselves.

    This race to the bottom for humanity is only further exacerbated by the ignorance of people all across the human spectrum of their own potential for sociopathy. It is the stuff that the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran had been written about for thousands of years, and certainly the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures as well; it was getting man to overcome his difficulty in seeing something other than himself as God.

    I can possibly see a time when “harmonization” and “one world government” might work and actually work well, but first we have to earn it and we have to wait until everyone is ready for it, not have it rammed down our throats by a gang of self-serving banking and economic mafia families. When and if that time comes, it will be because leaders will be willing to let other people in the population have their voices heard and to share in the regulation and governance of the people they are meant to serve. As it is now, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, are no different than the Gambino, the Patriarca, and the Luchese families; all they do is put the spiritual evolution of mankind into a deep-freeze and the realization of ourselves being a part of Creation is totally ignored.

    The Bushes, the Clintons, Kissinger and their sociopathic ilk are just dutiful lieutenants in the “family”, willing to throw the children of their own countrymen under the first available bus if they thought they could get a little more power and a little more recognition at the table of thieves.

    At this point in time, guns represent the right to still be able protect yourself from those people who haven’t figured out what “aggression” means. We have a right to protect ourselves because we live (although the globalists have been hard at work to find many ways to eliminate that as one of their problems; i.e. us living).

    In closing, it seems that after all these thousands of years, the Jews still haven’t figured out that the Promised Land was never a place on Earth. It was a place in one’s heart and mind that connected with the divine. Since Abraham stumbled upon that land of Canaan so long ago, the Jews have managed to continue coveting the land where others had been living, sharing, quarreling, for the previous 80,000 years. It was trans-migrational corridor to Europe. God gave the Jews the right to share in that land; it was Satan who empowered them to think it was theirs to now take for themselves. And look where we are today because of that greed.

  15. Glaze is probably stating the reason he left, as the goals of the group (pass stricter gun laws) did not align properly with the mission (make this country safer through common sense reforms), since there’s no proof that stricter laws promote a safer populace. Plus, as everyone knows, proposed legislation does nothing to keep guns out of the bad guys’ hands, including the cases of these mass shootings.

    With that said, the other side of it is that there’s no common ground between the anti-gun lobby and the gun rights advocates. One wants guns gone, the other wants guns everywhere. However, even we as 2a supporters can admit that SOME type of legislation is needed (in order to stop criminals from getting guns, stop nuts from buying guns, stop kids from buying guns, etc.). Is what’s currently in place enough? I think that is the true debate at this point, so maybe that can be the middle ground.

    • We could start by repealing the laws that aren’t working, don’t reduce crime, and don’t increase safety. The regulatory burden just adds costs and inconveniences law abiding citizens.

      Then we can look at laws that DO help. For instance, I am all for the straw purchase laws. If you’re going to give a gun to someone to use in the commission of a crime you should be an accessory. Although it’s possible other laws on the books address that.

      Then any future proposed laws need to be evaluated for whether they impact criminals or citizens. If it requires compliance and following the law or you become a criminal for not following it, then it’s no good. I’m not interested in making criminals out of citizens. I am only interested in punishing criminals.

      • The entire concept of “straw purchasers” pertains only to background checks, which have accomplished exactly nothing. There will never be another straw purchase if we simply eliminate NICS, background checks, etc., thus saving untold billions of dollars each year.

        • True, straw purchases have to do with background checks. However, to say background checks accomplish nothing is quite an exaggerated statement. Yes, they can be a pain for some, but most have very little issue with them. However, they do stop some bad people from buying firearms (the easy/legal way, at least). Sure, they may find other means to get a gun, but that doesn’t mean we should allow criminals to legally purchase guns either. That’s like saying instead of locking your car doors, you should just leave them unlocked because chances are a criminal will find other ways to break in anyway. Car door locks are a deterrent, and I believe that’s the purpose of background checks. If you haven’t had any issues in your past, you shouldn’t have any trouble (yes, there are some isolated cases of the contrary). When I purchased my gun, my background check took, literally, 4 minutes.

          Do I have all the answers? Heck no, and I don’t claim I do. My point is the view of ‘all or nothing’ by both sides isn’t a good place to finally settle the debate. A lot of that has to do with trust, and neither side particularly trusts each other. I agree that some laws that only serve the purpose of burdening law-abiding citizens (magazine capacity limits, assault weapons bans, gun purchase ‘waiting’ periods, etc) have no place to be on the books. However, that also doesn’t mean that all the safeguards that could be in place are in place (such as tightening the reporting of those with mental instability).

        • +1

          Like the security theater at the airport background checks force criminals outside the system an makes it harder for them to acquire firearms. It creates opportunities for law enforcement to take criminals off the street.

  16. The solution is for society to pay better attention to the people around them and to get to know the people around them and be dutifully responsive to the clear warning signs we’ve seen each mass murderer or attempted mass murder present. The solution is for parents, schools, court systems, and communities to stop passing the buck on potentially problematic individuals onto a new school, new psychologist, new drug, or new community.

  17. He promises to come back after the Stupid Fecundating People forget about what a train wreck the democrat government is. This is scheduled to take place after another democrat messiah has taken over and ushered in the People’s Utopia. Meanwhile, he can broaden his resume by crusading for other aspects of the Populist Agenda

  18. The name “Everytown” is a complete misnomer/lie. It should really be called “OneCity”. This is one billionaire’s Elitist City agenda being shoved down our throats as ‘grassroots’. What a joke. I don’t even think we should refer to them as anything but ‘OneCity’ from here forward. I don’t accept “Everytown”.

  19. Ironically, through all the sound and fury, the one thing that has been repeatedly demonstrated to reduce gun crime is more guns in the hands of regular people.

    • That, and perhaps prosperity. All else being equal, a beast with full belly is less likely to go prowling.

  20. It’s not at all a messaging problem. There’s no breakdown in communication here. Their message correctly reflects their intent. They’re just wrong on the substance of their message having the proclaimed intent, but that’s a different matter from messaging.

  21. Joe McNally, one of the world’s top pro digital photographers, breaks new ground by doing something no photography book has ever done-blending the rich, stunning images and elegant layout of a coffee-table book with the invaluable training, no-nonsense insights, and photography secrets usually found only in those rare, best-of-breed educational books.

  22. The problem with Mark Glaze is that he spouts his opinions as if they were facts. The ban of 1994 was ineffective although he would try to have you believe otherwise. He supports a nationwide gun “buy back” implying choice but in reality, it’s a gun confiscation. The most the government would pay would be 20 to 30 cents on the dollar. So for a firearm purchased for $1000.00, the government would only pay a maximum of $200.00 to $300.00. He was recently interviewed by Tucker Carlson when he proposed this ludicrous idea and Mr. Carlson asked him point blank what if people did not want to sell their guns back. Glaze responded with that a heavy fine would be imposed for non-compliance. So in effect, there is no voluntary gun buy back but a gun confiscation with a stipend attached to it.

    Mr. Glaze cites countries like Australia that instituted a nationwide gun confiscation. They were able to do this because there is no right to keep and bear arms in Australia like there is in the United States. Mark Glaze could care less about violating law abiding citizen’s rights and wants to take their guns because they are an easy target. Most of the people he is targeting has legally bought and registered their firearms. So, they get a master list and start sending out letters telling people to turn in their firearms. He won’t go after the crooks that steal or illegally purchase them from other criminals. That is too hard with a chance of minimum results.

    Glaze likes to throw around the term “assault weapons.” Glaze should actually look up the definition of an assault weapon which includes an fully automatic capability, e.g., the M-249 Squad Assault Weapon (SAW) which is fully automatic. Right now, the current rifle that is popular is the AR-15 that has many cosmetic similarities to it’s military counterpart, the M-16 and M-4 rifles. These cosmetic differences do not enhance the firearm’s ability to shoot any faster than without the cosmetic additions. If I was to take any semi-automatic rifle that looked nothing like the AR-15, I could still inflict as much damage simply because I am an excellent marksman and I don’t need a fore grip or plastic hand guards to be effective with it.

    Blaze and his followers would have you believe he is in tune with the gun world. He is not and has some other agenda that will lead to the revocation of the 2nd Amendment and endorse gun confiscation.

  23. Mark Glaze lied tonight 3/5/2018 on Tucker Carlson with guest host Mark Steyn. His lie was, “But think about the Newtown mass shooting. There was armed security there. They were in the school and they were unable to stop a guy who radically over armed them.”

Comments are closed.