From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Compromise
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul19.033836.19059@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<veal.93@utkvm1.utk.edu>
	<1992Jul20.212759.21616@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:34:06 GMT

<In article <1992Jul20.212759.21616@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
<In article <veal.93@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
<>In article <1992Jul19.033836.19059@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
<>>There are things that gun owners would like that we don't have.  We
<>>might be able to get them by trading things we don't care about as
<>>much.  THere's a difference between that and appeasement, even if he
<>>doesn't understand it.
<>
<>     A very, *very* fine line.  However, I've seen very few "compromises"
<>in which the gun-controllers gave anything beyond "Well, you can keep some of 
<>your guns..."

<No, there's a HUGE difference.  It's the difference between being
<better off after a mutually beneficial trade and being worse off after
<appeasement.

	I would say it is the difference between being SOME better
	off vs. being worse off; I'll expand on this in a bit.

<   The "in which the gun-controllers gave" comment is very revealing.
<   Not only do the "no compromise" folks misunderstand the question,
<   they don't even know who they're dealing with.

	This is a bit simplistic; some of us are "no compromisers"
	by first principle on all of the Constitution, not
	just the 2nd.

	ACLU has made a fine business out of heavily publicizing
	its "no compromise" stand on the 1st Amendment. Never mind
	that they don't live up to their press releases; the image
	is there and it has to help some in certain circumstances.

	Consider last October, when NRA stood by the "no compromise"
	banner in the House Crime Bill (HR-3371); what was the
	result? How would you improve on that result, please?

<   Gun owners can't make a mutually beneficial trade with gun-banners,
<   but that's not particularly interesting as there are other parties
<   involved and that a trade with them is binding on everyone.

	Uh, that last clause isn't always true; see BATF
	interpretations of the "imported parts" compromise, for
	instance.

<   Gun-banners have figured out that they can roll gun owners 2:1 by
<   ignoring us and dealing with the "don't much care" folk.  They trade
<   with them, not with us.

	Ok, let's look at the record. McClure-Volkmer was pretty
	much a deal with the "don't much care" folk, yes?
	So are we better off or not?

	Well, on the plus side, record keeping for ammunition
	and ammunition components is gone; that's mighty good.
	Not having to order out-of-state ammo and components via an FFL
	makes shooting less expensive AND reloading even cheaper.
	It also removes some of the annoying "big brother" aspects;
	having to produce a drivers license and a home address just
	to buy a box of .22 LR never ceased to annoy me.

	Being able to purchase long guns, within the restrictions
	of the various State laws involved, away from ones' home
	State is also a very good thing; giving up the chance
	to buy handguns interstate in exchange for long gun
	purchases is quite likely what Andy is getting at.

	On the other hand, an awful lot of the original text
	of McClure-Volkmer was gutted; the safe interstate transport
	clauses are virtually meaningless now, for example,
	in such palaces of liberty as Ohio and New York...which
	are the very places that "safe interstate transport" is
	*needed*.

	Then there is the post 86 full auto ban; at the time, I
	thought it was worth it but as time has passed and "we
	can ban machine guns, so why not 'semi-auto-assault-rifles'"
	used as a "logical argument" in far too many newspaper
	columns as well as politicians mailers, I have become 
	doubtful of this particular "trade". It now smacks of
	just another "slice of salami" to me.

	So tell me, Andy, was McClure-Volkmer a successful
	trade or not? Why or why not?

<Meanwhile, gun owners pitch their arguments at gun-banners.  While
<that may be intellectually pure, it is politically stupid.

	Aw, come on, Andy, a lot of us pitch our arguments at 
	the "uninformed middle" as well as vote-counting politicians.
	And pitching SOME arguments at the anti-freedom crowd is
	useful; if nothing else, it shows we aren't afraid of them.

	Also, it never hurts to remind people that are in our corner
	exactly what it is we want and why; Congressman Skeen is
	a solid NRA A but I still drop him a line from time to time,
	if for no other reason than to remind him that he's doing
	a good job IMHO.

<>>>And then, what do you do when they then come back and ask for a compromise
<>>>(because the problem wasn't solved the first time -- which is extremely
<>>>likely) to have you give up half of your *remaining* rights from the first
<>>>compromise?
<   >
<   >>No deal is forever, so any argument which assumes otherwise is flawed.
<   >>We'll come back asking for more and so will they.  That's how things
<   >>work.
<   >
<   >     When was the last time the government lowered taxes?  (Not just 
<   >shuffled them around, actually *lowered* them.)

<So what?  The point is that no deal ends the dispute, and that no deal
<won't either.  What do they say about "eternal vigilance"?

	The point is that all too often, even a good compromise (such
	as McClure-Volkmer) is used as part of the "salami tactics".

	Also, SOME compromises just aren't acceptable; waiting periods
	are bad, bad, bad because they introduce the concept that the
	State can make one wait to exercise a Constitutional right.
	Once the concept of "waiting period" is introduced, it only
	gets worse; as someone from Kalifornia should know all too
	well. Thus, IMHO, a compromise that included *any* waiting
	period would be a form of capitulation, not a compromise...
	but Andy may well disagree with me here.

	Which reminds me: once again Bill Ruger got up on his hind
	legs and sold us out, on national TV no less. How he can
	claim to speak for "responsible gunowners" is beyond me;
	and how he can claim that a waiting period is acceptable
	is amazing. I don't care *what* Mas Ayoob says, Ruger is
	"off the ranch" now and will remain so as long as he's
	willing to sell the rest of us out.

	Any desire I may have for a new Ruger firearm as long as 
	he's spouting that bilge is going to be suppressed 90 db 
	in a few nanoseconds.

	In other words; defend freedom, boycott Ruger.

<>     It's not that I don't think compromise is bad in and of itself, but I 
<>don't think it's going to do any good in this particular debate.  Everything 
<>I've seen indicates that it won't.  There are *heavy* restrictions on guns 
<>in many, mnay places, and it is some of those places that are currently 
<>screaming louder for more.  I'm not aware of many places where "reasonable" 
<>gun laws were enacted and then left alone.

<   Hint: losers aren't left alone.  That's true whether they got a bone
<   or just a kick in the teeth last time.

	So are winners. We "won" quite a bit as part of McClure-
	Volkmer; but within a year, the mice were nibbling at it,
	remember?

	Consider another compromise; the "imported assault weapons
	parts" ban...sure, it was a kind of victory, but BATF's
	interpretation is what counts, not what *we* believe.
	On balance, it was a minor loss...which beats a major loss,
	but is hardly a "compromise".
	
<   Hint2: who suggested heavy restrictions had to be part of a deal?
 
	Well, given the kinds of "deals" offered lately.....
	it's hardly surprising he'd get that idea.

<(For example, consider a "compromise" that implemented a reasonable
<skills test in return for mandatory issue carry permits.  Then that
<can be used to roll back other laws.)

	Uh huh....what's the track record of using McClure-Volkmer
	to "roll back" other parts of GCA-68, please?

	Yes.....

<If you don't understand the question and don't know who you're talking
<to, you're going to be very disappointed in the results.

	And if you *do* understand the question, *do* know who you're
	talking to but just get real nervous any time someone like
	Bill Ruger claims to be speaking for "all *reasonable* gun 
	owners"....what then?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns