From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Compromise
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:40:19 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul23101115@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Jul21.233048.15385@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
><   So?  Their "no trade" argument sells very well to the middle.  Note
><   that it isn't addressed to the censors.
>
>	Huh? Are you the same "Andy Freeman" who asserts that
>	"no compromise" is not a good position for firearms owners?
>
>	How come it's good for ACLU, but bad for NRA, please?

Because "no trade" is fairly popular in the middle wrt the 1st and it
isn't wrt the 2nd.  (It turns out that the middle does like some
speech restrictions, so the difference is less than the labels
suggest.)  Intelligent people pitch to the relevant audience.

><   Since that bill wasn't a "compromise", it isn't relevant to the
><   discussion.  (If you're going to claim that it was, you get to point
><   to the "gun owners got" provisions.)
>
>	While I agree that 3371 was no true compromise, I assert
>	that it shows just how useful the "no compromise" position
>	can be, when offered a capitulation dressed up as
>	"compromise".
>	
>	Since Freeman has derided "no compromise" as a useless
>	position in all cases, it's up to him to show how it
>	was useless last October.

No, I didn't say that.  I said that "no compromise" as one's ONLY
response was bad politics.  There's quite a difference between that
and using a "that's not a deal, it's just a gun grab" reaction as
appropriate.

I'm not arguing against opposing gun grabs, I'm arguing FOR proposing
deals as well as pure wins.  The "no compromise" folks oppose the
former, which makes it very difficult to oppose "deals" where we don't
benefit even though we get a bone.

><   So?  We got thrown a bone.  It isn't surprising that there wasn't
><   any meat on it, and isn't relevant to the discussion.
>
>	Sorry, it IS relevant because a "deal" was cut with the
>	"middle" but it wasn't binding "on everyone" as you asserted
>	above. 
>
>	Deals that are binding on gun owners are NOT binding
>	"on everyone else" as you said; BATF doesn't seem to consider
>	ANY deal binding.
>
>	This is not a persnickity detail, this is a major problem
>	with REAL compromise.

Yawn.  The fact that a specific "we get" provision doesn't work has
only two causes.  Either we blew it or we didn't get it.  Neither is
relevant to the question at hand.

Laws are binding on BATF; Taylor is just mad because the law didn't
work as he hoped.

><   We weren't pitching a deal in these situations, so our experience in
><   them has nothing to do with the properties of deals.
>
>	Piffle. Assume a real deal such as mandatory training in
>	exchange for a national Florida-style CCP. Now, BATF turns
>	around in 6 months to rule that "training" must be done
>	at a not-yet-existant Federal Training Centers in each
>	state capital. We have compromised ourselves into a corner, yes?

Anyone so stupid to propose/accept such a deal deserves to lose.

An intelligent trader makes sure that the contract delivers the
minimum s/he wants in return for the maximum s/he gives up.  That
requires handling the details.  "No compromise" is easy, but it loses
when the other side trades with the middle.

><   >	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?
>
><   Hint: proposing a deal doesn't guarantee that it will be beneficial.
><   If we're stupid enough to propose deals that don't benefit us, that's
><   our problem.
>
>	Please answer the question. Was McClure-Volkmer a
>	good deal or not? Are we better off overall or not?

Why?  Suppose it isn't; that doesn't mean that all deals are bad.

><   >	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.
>
><   Huh?  68 GCA hosed all interstate gun sales.  
>
>	Correct. GCA 68 was NOT McClure-Volkmer, yes?

So?  McClure-Volkmer didn't "give up" interstate handgun sales.
It merely didn't restore them after they were lost in GCA 68.

I'm not going to discuss "was this a good deal" wrt McClure-Volkmer
details.  There are good and bad deals; the existence of the latter is
not an argument against proposing the former, unless you're going to
argue that there are no good deals or that gun owners can't make them.

BTW - If we're too weak to make good deals, we're too weak to stop the
other side from rolling us.  When "no compromise" wins, we're usually
strong enough to actually make a trade that benefits us.  But the "no
compromisers" don't accept anything other than pure wins.

><   So?  Even if we treat that part of it as a deal, and not a hose
><   job, if we didn't like the package, we could have pulled it.
>
>	Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The full-auto ban
>	was stuck in on a voice vote and we had a choice of
>	either taking what was left as a package OR killing
>	it and starting over. Given that choice, rather a lot
>	of people chose to swallow the bitter with the sweet.

I WROTE we could have pulled the whole package, so "Sorry, that's not
the way it worked." followed by that isn't exactly a useful comment.

><   Does Taylor want to argue that gun owners can't competently deal?

><  Does he want to argue that gun owners can't benefit from any trade?

><  Does he want to argue that the fact that there are bad deals means
><  that all deals are bad?

I'm providing plausible reasons for the "no compromise" position
because Taylor hasn't bothered.  If he doesn't like them, he can
propose his own or concede that there aren't any.

><   >	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.
>
><   Why does Taylor think that has anything to do with my comment.
> 
>	Is Freeman asserting that contacting Congressman has
>	nothing to do with the politics of "gun control"? 

Yes, I am.  Contacting pro-gun pols does have nothing to do with the
gun control politics issue under discussion.  2+4=4 is true too, but
irrelevant.

><   >	The point is that all too often, even a good compromise (such
><   >	as McClure-Volkmer) is used as part of the "salami tactics".
>
><   So?  They try salami tactics no matter what we do, and we try them no
><   matter what they do.  Trading, or not, can't change that.
>
>	Huh? Where have we tried salami tactics lately?

Taylor is right.  The gun-rights movement hasn't bothered to go after
small wins.  Ignoring them is pure, but stupid.

>	So, there are SOME things that cannot be compromised.

No.  There are some things that are very expensive.  I won't pay a
$500 for a stick of gum, but I would for a match-grade Garand.

>	Is Freeman asserting that *any* trade is a good trade?
>	Is Freeman asserting that deals should be cut, for the
>	sake of the deal?

I've never written anything consistent with the above.  My explicit
statements reject those positions.

However, they do convince me of one thing.  I'm done with this
discussion.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns