From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Compromise
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:30:48 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21143406@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Jul20.212759.21616@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
><   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.

So?  Their "no trade" argument sells very well to the middle.  Note
that it isn't addressed to the censors.

>	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?

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.)

><   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.

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.

We weren't pitching a deal in these situations, so our experience in
them has nothing to do with the properties of deals.

><   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?

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.

>	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.  The 86 changes allowed
some.  That's a partial win with NO down side; there was no
"trade" involving interstate handgun sales for interstate long gun
sales.  We didn't "give up" anything; we just got only half of
what we asked for.

>	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*.

So?  Things were worse before and we couldn't get everything we wanted.
That's no argument against dealing.

>	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?  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.

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?

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

Not relevant to the point at hand.

><Meanwhile, gun owners pitch their arguments at gun-banners.  While
><that may be intellectually pure, it is politically stupid.
>
>	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.
I didn't mention what we should say to other gun owners; I'm
only criticising the emphasis on talking to gun banners as opposed
to "don't cares".

><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".

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.

>	Also, SOME compromises just aren't acceptable; waiting periods

So?

><   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?

So?  Surely Taylor isn't going to claim that doing nothing protects
us from such nibbling efforts, or that "no trade" does either.

><   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.

Any "surprise" felt by the clueless isn't very interesting.

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

Well, it did roll back parts directly.  Are you going to claim that
its passage had nothing to do with the state law changes immediately
afterwards?

Also, did we try to build on 86, or did we just sit around thinking
that one win was the end of the fight?

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