If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I don't think so.
I'd like to see the numbers over the next few months.
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.
I would just like to see membership numbers in the up coming months.
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.
The spin free version. The version that doesn't make me feel like I'm being spoken to like an uninformed child.
MA Republicans support 2A? This is new. When did that happen?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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?
This (see bold).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 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 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.
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.
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.
To my mind -- not knowing the details -- that reflects a real accomplishment somewhere, and likely some or most all of it at GOAL.
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.
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.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, 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.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.
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.
They'd do a lot better to make it up on volume.