GOAL Responds to Calls for Membership Cancellations

[Serapis]

I don't think so.

I'd like to see the numbers over the next few months.

 

[Bob P]

I don't think so.

I'd like to see the numbers over the next few months.

Did you read the link Sweeny sent? What about that isn't an explanation. What would you like to see that wasn't covered in the email?

 

[FSTC]

I think the honest truth here is that there are some people are upset at GOAL. I wonder after all this is said and done how many members were lost? Also, how many were gained?

If GOAL wants to maintain a certain level of membership, they might have to explain to people why they thought this was the right way to handle this legislation. I know, I know, people are going to hoot and holler at me because I am speaking out about GOAL, but I am telling you outside of this forum some people are not happy. Right or wrong, like it or not, there are people.

GOAL is a lobbying group, they have do dance the dance if they wish to get anything accomplished. We can hold signs, write letters and post on the internet all we want about "no infringement" But for GOAL to get anything done, they have to play the game, even if it means saying "neutral" or "support".

 

[Serapis]

The spin free version. The version that doesn't make me feel like I'm being spoken to like an uninformed child.

Again, I know its a touchy subject with a lot of the board being members on here who post regualraly. It's hard to have an opinion on here without the whole, "well what else do you want attitude." I have been critical of GOAL during this process. I don't share the same "VICTORY" stance they have on this legislation. Based off of PM's and Reps I received I know am not alone. Based off some people I have talked too outside of NES, I know I am not alone. You can ignore it if you like.

I would just like to see membership numbers in the up coming months. Hopefully it's not affected too much. I will continue to send money when I can to GOAL, but trust me its only because of lack of choice in this state.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I would just like to see membership numbers in the up coming months.

If you're a member (I assume you are), you are welcome to attend any of the board meetings. We have nothing to hide. If you have suggestions for ways for us to better express our message, then we're all ears.

 

[P-14]

Rob is using classic divide-and-conquer techniques to attempt to drive a wedge between GOAL supporters with the purpose of making GOAL less effective. He is trying to influence us to help make GOAL fail with their next legislative mission.

He is a tool. Ignore him.

 

[jasons]

The spin free version. The version that doesn't make me feel like I'm being spoken to like an uninformed child.

Again, I know its a touchy subject with a lot of the board being members on here who post regualraly. It's hard to have an opinion on here without the whole, "well what else do you want attitude." I have been critical of GOAL during this process. I don't share the same "VICTORY" stance they have on this legislation. Based off of PM's and Reps I received I know am not alone. Based off some people I have talked too outside of NES, I know I am not alone. You can ignore it if you like.

I would just like to see membership numbers in the up coming months. Hopefully it's not affected too much. I will continue to send money when I can to GOAL, but trust me its only because of lack of choice in this state.

The spin free version: GOAL (and gun owners in general, whether members or not) did the best they could, and a lot better than most of us expected, with what little resources and influence that they have. That's it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The spin free version: GOAL (and gun owners in general, whether members or not) did the best they could, and a lot better than most of us expected, with what little resources and influence that they have. That's it.

I think that's dramatically understating what happened here. In relative terms, what we were able to accomplish by transforming H.4121 into H.4376 is akin to what Colorado gun owners did in recalling two of the legislators that actually passed a gun control bill. This is a game changer of sorts.

The political establishment got a very rude wake-up call when they tried to ride through some happy-crap new piece of anti-gun legislation. There was, and still is, a lot of cold water dripping off the faces on Beacon Hill. The events of the last two months represent a fundamental change in the way our 'leaders' are going to look at gun control in the future. They have a very sour taste in their mouths because a once no-brainer issue has suddenly became a mine field. Even in Massachusetts, guns are not the political whipping boys they once were. Once the Governor signs H. 4376 members of the House and Senate will agree upon one thing: They'll be glad it's over.

We're still a long way from having our officials actually do something to support the Second Amendment, but I think it's going to be a long time before you see a credible legislative attempt (regulators are different) to screw us. Let's take a moment and pat ourselves on the back. This is a pretty significant moment.

 

[jefftk]

The spin free version. The version that doesn't make me feel like I'm being spoken to like an uninformed child.

Serapis does have a point here. The several GOAL updates/statements I have seen have touted the gains and successes from our efforts with regards to this bill - and justifiably so. However, there are definitely a few losses here as well, which were absent from the updates and I think should have been included for completeness.

 

[PaulD]

MA Republicans support 2A? This is new. When did that happen?

touche'

 

[Bob P]

Serapis does have a point here. The several GOAL updates/statements I have seen have touted the gains and successes from our efforts with regards to this bill - and justifiably so. However, there are definitely a few losses here as well, which were absent from the updates and I think should have been included for completeness.

I agree. The official communication was too rah rah. That was a mistake. Given how hard very one worked on it I'd say understandable but rah rah none the less.

 

[jasons]

I agree. The official communication was too rah rah. That was a mistake. Given how hard very one worked on it I'd say understandable but rah rah none the less.

Perhaps, but I'm willing to overlook some exuberance given the circumstances. It seems to be a pretty inconsequential thing to get all worked up about.

 

[Coyote33]

I think the honest truth here is that there are some people are upset at GOAL. I wonder after all this is said and done how many members were lost? Also, how many were gained? If GOAL wants to maintain a certain level of membership, they might have to explain to people why they thought this was the right way to handle this legislation. I know, I know, people are going to hoot and holler at me because I am speaking out about GOAL, but I am telling you outside of this forum some people are not happy. Right or wrong, like it or not, there are people.

Good point. Most of us get it, but not everyone does. The question is, how much time and resources should GOAL spend trying to convince the remaining 5-10%? Would their time and resources be better spent on the next thing? Tough call.

If you're a member (I assume you are), you are welcome to attend any of the board meetings. We have nothing to hide. If you have suggestions for ways for us to better express our message, then we're all ears.

1) Some sort of campaign. Need to pull in people to speak on their behalf. Think celebrities, famous people, etc. Kind of like an "I'm the NRA", but for GOAL.

2) Need to raise funds in order to avoid the "we don't have enough funds" repetitions.

3) Need to grow the base of politicians supporting our cause. We won't have Peterson, Brewer, etc. much longer. We need to keep on ones like Timilty, Ferguson, Fattman, Beaton, Moore, etc. and bring on new folks as well.

4) Need to reach out to police. Hold shooting competitions. Put together workshops. Get their heads together with police to come up with some meaningful legislation both sides can get behind.

5) Work on the leagues/clubs. Work on teams (schools), or even college/high school team relationships/affiliations. Start with young kids, and get early interest and safety handled, then cultivate new gun owners and future voters and spokespeople.

6) Reach out EVEN MORE to women and minorities, and ENLIST THEIR HELP.

7) Billboard (I've tried suggesting this here in the past)

I think that's dramatically understating what happened here. In relative terms, what we were able to accomplish by transforming H.4121 into H.4376 is akin to what Colorado gun owners did in recalling two of the legislators that actually passed a gun control bill. This is a game changer of sorts. The political establishment got a very rude wake-up call when they tried to ride through some happy-crap new piece of anti-gun legislation. There was, and still is, a lot of cold water dripping off the faces on Beacon Hill. The events of the last two months represent a fundamental change in the way our 'leaders' are going to look at gun control in the future. They have a very sour taste in their mouths because a once no-brainer issue has suddenly became a mine field. Even in Massachusetts, guns are not the political whipping boys they once were. Once the Governor signs H. 4376 members of the House and Senate will agree upon one thing: They'll be glad it's over. We're still a long way from having our officials actually do something to support the Second Amendment, but I think it's going to be a long time before you see a credible legislative attempt (regulators are different) to screw us. Let's take a moment and pat ourselves on the back. This is a pretty significant moment.

Don't be so cock-sure of this. The other side may take this as a wake-up call or rallying cry; so we need to be ready for a pendulum effect.

Serapis does have a point here. The several GOAL updates/statements I have seen have touted the gains and successes from our efforts with regards to this bill - and justifiably so. However, there are definitely a few losses here as well, which were absent from the updates and I think should have been included for completeness.

Yes, some full disclosure would have come across as more honest. It also gives GOAL some goals to shoot for.

Perhaps, but I'm willing to overlook some exuberance given the circumstances. It seems to be a pretty inconsequential thing to get all worked up about.

True enough.

 

[boscru]

I will admit I held off renewing my goal membership until this all played out.

I believe goal did a credible job lobbying and organizing the membership. did we gain anything from before this fiasco started??? no. did we stop the initial s**t-show of a bill in it's tracks??? yes.

renewal check is in the stamped envelope and will go in the first p.o. box I see.

jmho

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think that's dramatically understating what happened here. In relative terms, what we were able to accomplish by transforming H.4121 into H.4376 is akin to what Colorado gun owners did in recalling two of the legislators that actually passed a gun control bill. This is a game changer of sorts.

The political establishment got a very rude wake-up call when they tried to ride through some happy-crap new piece of anti-gun legislation. There was, and still is, a lot of cold water dripping off the faces on Beacon Hill. The events of the last two months represent a fundamental change in the way our 'leaders' are going to look at gun control in the future. They have a very sour taste in their mouths because a once no-brainer issue has suddenly became a mine field. Even in Massachusetts, guns are not the political whipping boys they once were. Once the Governor signs H. 4376 members of the House and Senate will agree upon one thing: They'll be glad it's over.

We're still a long way from having our officials actually do something to support the Second Amendment, but I think it's going to be a long time before you see a credible legislative attempt (regulators are different) to screw us. Let's take a moment and pat ourselves on the back. This is a pretty significant moment.

Don't be so cock-sure of this. The other side may take this as a wake-up call or rallying cry; so we need to be ready for a pendulum effect.

If by 'the other side' you mean Rosenthal and his ilk, then yes, they may wake up and try to become more relevant. But they don't deliver votes. They deliver people and media for dog-and-pony shows. We deliver people willing to stand out side the statehouse, and call and write until they're sick of hearing from us. The other side can't do that. You will never get the kind of response we mounted out of the other side. There aren't that many of them and they don't care that much. What does that mean to elected officials? No much where it counts - votes.

 

[Martlet]

Do you consider this a win, or a "we didn't get effed as bad as we thought we would"? Is it a net gain, or loss?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Do you consider this a win, or a "we didn't get effed as bad as we thought we would"? Is it a net gain, or loss?

I consider the last two months to be a major victory. My assessment is not based upon what was in or not in the bill that was passed, but because I think it represents a paradigm shift in how gun control plays into Massachusetts politics. Speaker DeLeo and the rest of them were going one way based upon tried and true Massachusetts political values and they got a very rude awakening. What ultimately passes was as much about saving face for DeLeo as anything else. That's pretty big.

 

[cekim]

I consider the last two months to be a major victory. My assessment is not based upon what was in or not in the bill that was passed, but because I think it represents a paradigm shift in how gun control plays into Massachusetts politics. Speaker DeLeo and the rest of them were going one way based upon tried and true Massachusetts political values and they got a very rude awakening. What ultimately passes was as much about saving face for DeLeo as anything else. That's pretty big.

This (see bold).

Unfortunately for all of us, this was the easy part. Now comes the hard work.

 

[Roy Rogers]

I consider the last two months to be a major victory. My assessment is not based upon what was in or not in the bill that was passed, but because I think it represents a paradigm shift in how gun control plays into Massachusetts politics. Speaker DeLeo and the rest of them were going one way based upon tried and true Massachusetts political values and they got a very rude awakening. What ultimately passes was as much about saving face for DeLeo as anything else. That's pretty big.

Agreed. Are there steps we can take to build upon this foundation proactively, instead of waiting for the next threat to our civil rights to rear its ugly head?

 

[Garys]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Knuckle Dragger again."

I think that's dramatically understating what happened here. In relative terms, what we were able to accomplish by transforming H.4121 into H.4376 is akin to what Colorado gun owners did in recalling two of the legislators that actually passed a gun control bill. This is a game changer of sorts.

The political establishment got a very rude wake-up call when they tried to ride through some happy-crap new piece of anti-gun legislation. There was, and still is, a lot of cold water dripping off the faces on Beacon Hill. The events of the last two months represent a fundamental change in the way our 'leaders' are going to look at gun control in the future. They have a very sour taste in their mouths because a once no-brainer issue has suddenly became a mine field. Even in Massachusetts, guns are not the political whipping boys they once were. Once the Governor signs H. 4376 members of the House and Senate will agree upon one thing: They'll be glad it's over.

We're still a long way from having our officials actually do something to support the Second Amendment, but I think it's going to be a long time before you see a credible legislative attempt (regulators are different) to screw us. Let's take a moment and pat ourselves on the back. This is a pretty significant moment.

 

[PaulD]

I think the honest truth here is that there are some people are upset at GOAL. I wonder after all this is said and done how many members were lost? Also, how many were gained?

If GOAL wants to maintain a certain level of membership, they might have to explain to people why they thought this was the right way to handle this legislation. I know, I know, people are going to hoot and holler at me because I am speaking out about GOAL, but I am telling you outside of this forum some people are not happy. Right or wrong, like it or not, there are people.

You have a good point. However, I think this is minor relative to where GOAL membership currently stands.

 

[PaulD]

Do you consider this a win, or a "we didn't get effed as bad as we thought we would"? Is it a net gain, or loss?

Personally, I think it's pretty much a net zero gain/loss. Some aspects of MA gun laws got a bit worse. Some got a bit better. I'm still amazed we didn't get porked like NY and CT did.

 

[economist]

Personally, I think it's pretty much a net zero gain/loss. Some aspects of MA gun laws got a bit worse. Some got a bit better. I'm still amazed we didn't get porked like NY and CT did.

To my mind -- not knowing the details -- that reflects a real accomplishment somewhere, and likely some or most all of it at GOAL. There can be no doubt that Mass has the political mix of New York or CT, if not worse, when it comes to guns. I just assumed we would get some version of their new laws with enough differentiation to make the locals feel special. Overall, the result is continuation of law that would be a disaster in much of America, but compared to local anti-gun states is pretty decent. Absolutely bad, relatively good -- overall better than expected given the initial conditions. Mass, of course, is still a big-time anti-gun state. But there is no surprise in that.

 

[jasons]

To my mind -- not knowing the details -- that reflects a real accomplishment somewhere, and likely some or most all of it at GOAL.

GOAL clearly had a significant positive influence here, but I think the real accomplishment is that, for the first time I've seen since moving to this hell hole, gun owners as a group finally got off of their collective asses and made their voices heard. It's about damn time.

 

[CdP]

Personally, I think it's pretty much a net zero gain/loss. Some aspects of MA gun laws got a bit worse. Some got a bit better. I'm still amazed we didn't get porked like NY and CT did.

And in reality, in MA, that's a win. Who wouldn't have predicted a year ago that MA would fall as badly as NY and CT? Am I happy to celebrate this as a win? Of course not. I would far rather be celebrating a real return to 2A values and protections. But that's not going to happen overnight in Massachusetts. So the best we can hope for is an incremental approach that results in good positioning down the line. Meanwhile, work on getting even more popular opinion towards our side. Only then will we ever get real second amendment rights back to this state.

 

[PaulD]

And in reality, in MA, that's a win. Who wouldn't have predicted a year ago that MA would fall as badly as NY and CT? Am I happy to celebrate this as a win? Of course not. I would far rather be celebrating a real return to 2A values and protections. But that's not going to happen overnight in Massachusetts. So the best we can hope for is an incremental approach that results in good positioning down the line. Meanwhile, work on getting even more popular opinion towards our side. Only then will we ever get real second amendment rights back to this state.

Agreed.

My only issue with GOAL in all of this is that I think they should have been less enthusiastic on this as a win. If I were in charge of the PR it would have went something like "Congrats to all the gun owners who got involved and prevented this from being the debacle NY and CT saw. The MA state government still doesn't respect legal gun ownership, but we prevented a disaster like we had back in 1998."

GOAL is so overwhelmed by moonbats in this state though that I cut them plenty of slack.

 

[MetalgodZ]

I consider the last two months to be a major victory. My assessment is not based upon what was in or not in the bill that was passed, but because I think it represents a paradigm shift in how gun control plays into Massachusetts politics. Speaker DeLeo and the rest of them were going one way based upon tried and true Massachusetts political values and they got a very rude awakening. What ultimately passes was as much about saving face for DeLeo as anything else. That's pretty big.

I hope that the people that are focusing on the worst in this can look at the bolded and figure out how to capitalize on it.

My only issue with GOAL in all of this is that I think they should have been less enthusiastic on this as a win. If I were in charge of the PR it would have went something like "Congrats to all the gun owners who got involved and prevented this from being the debacle NY and CT saw. The MA state government still doesn't respect legal gun ownership, but we prevented a disaster like we had back in 1998."

GOAL is so overwhelmed by moonbats in this state though that I cut them plenty of slack.

Agreed, on both counts, with the addition that they seem to be overwhelmed by the speed at which this moved, when it eventually did so. I feel like if they had had more time to deal with this, and/or more people to do the parsing of the bills/amendments/roll calls, the direction given to members and subscribers could have been more focused and consistent. Not to mention that despite the fact that Mike Sweeney obviously pours heart and soul into the communication...I'd like to know what it'd take to get another person with some serious PR qualifications and another person dedicated to legislative research and response. I know that more dues = less members, but I'd gladly throw another $50 at GOAL every year if it meant a significant increase in effectiveness.

 

[PaulD]

I know that more dues = less members, but I'd gladly throw another $50 at GOAL every year if it meant a significant increase in effectiveness.

They'd do a lot better to make it up on volume.

 

[Garys]

They'd do a lot better to make it up on volume.

Agreed. Money does a lot, but it doesn't write letters or stand outside the State House. I doubt that GOAL would want to hire people to do either of those, but it certainly would encourage paying members to do so.

 

[browncoat]

They'd do a lot better to make it up on volume.

yup. Some of the gun clubs around here require NRA memberships to join. I'd like to see that switched to GOAL memberships instead, if some membership is required.