From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Compromise
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:11:15 GMT
	<1992Jul20.212759.21616@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul21143406@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul21.233048.15385@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul21.233048.15385@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
<   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.

	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?

<   >	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.)

	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.

<   ><   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.

	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.
	
<   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?

	Thus, in addition to working out true compromise, we must
	find SOME way to make the deal genuinely binding on BATF.

	And the recent experience with BATF rulings is not
	encouraging; thus, given BATF's tendencies, the "no
	compromise" position does not look so mindless.
	
<   ><   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.

	Please answer the question. Was McClure-Volkmer a
	good deal or not? Are we better off overall or not?

<   >	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?

<The 86 changes allowed some.  

	Correct. So are we better off, or not?

<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.

	Actually, the original McClure-Volkmer text allowed interstate
	sale of all firearms, within the constraints of appropriate
	state laws; by asking for all, we got 2/3. 

	Is this the kind of compromise you are endorsing or not?
	Bear in mind the rest of McClure-Volkmer; it was a package
	deal and was voted up/down as a package, not line-by-line.

<   >	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.

	Ok, so are you saying that McClure-Volkmer was a good deal
	or not? Is McClure-Volkmer the kind of thing you are
	referring to when you write about "compromise" or not?

	Gee, just answer the question, will you?

<   >	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.

	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.

	On balance, it *may* have been worth it; but I'm still
	not completely sure.

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

	No. Can Freeman show where I ever wrote that?
 
<  Does he want to argue that gun owners can't benefit from any trade?

	No. Can Freeman show where I ever wrote that?
 
<  Does he want to argue that the fact that there are bad deals means
<  that all deals are bad?

	No. Can Freeman show where I ever wrote that?

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

<   Not relevant to the point at hand.

	Andy, are you being obtuse for some particular reason?

	McClure-Volkmer is the most recent "deal" that was cut,
	right? All later bills have been holding actions, not deals,
	right? Thus, if we are going to discuss "pitching a deal 
	to the middle", it is helpful to consider similar real
	deals that really happened as a possible guide to what 
	future deals might look like, right?

	This is assuming, of course, that real deals are what
	one wants to discuss, as opposed to some misty ideal 
	bill that might, in the Platonic sense, be floating
	around....

	So I ask you; do you consider McClure-Volkmer to be
	a good deal or not? Why or why not? If you don't like
	it, bear in mind that it was the best we could get, at
	the time...and thus is indeed quite relevant to what
	we *might* be able to get now or in the immediate future.

	(We might not be able to get anything nearly as good
	 as McClure-Volkmer...and thus it is relevant as "the
	 best we can hope for" as well.)

<   ><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.
 
	Is Freeman asserting that contacting Congressman has
	nothing to do with the politics of "gun control"? 

	Pitching to the middle is an excellent idea; but reminding
	our friends that we are still out here is always worthwhile.

	If Freeman disagrees with that statement, he should consider
	the career of Senator DeConcini; the same Senator who
	introduced a semi-auto ban once held hearings into the
	behavior of BATF, chastising that agency for actions
	similar to the Lawmaster raid.

<  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".

	Fine. I agree, it's more useful. BUT taking politicians who
	are on our side for granted is foolish, to say the least.

	That's the only point I was trying to make. Calm down,
	will you?

<   ><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.

	Huh? Where have we tried salami tactics lately? We've been
	too damned busy on the defensive as far as I can see;
	given the hostile environment in the various Judiciary
	committees, any *real* compromise wouldn't have a chance
	in the *current* Congress. Real compromise would either
	die in sub-committee or mutate into a Sarah Brady Special
	which the folks who introduced the bill would then have
	to oppose. Great PR, there, introducing a compromise
	bill, then having to try to kill it.

	I agree that trading doesn't change that; but if a true
	compromise mutates into a giveaway, then it becomes time
	for "no compromise", yes? Is Freeman willing to reiterate
	his position that "no compromise is useless" again?

	Or would Freeman stand by and watch, say, a rollback of the
	'86 new Class III ban mutate into a nationwide rifle
	registration scheme and accept it because of the "compromise"?
	
<   >	Also, SOME compromises just aren't acceptable; waiting periods

<   So?

	So, there are SOME things that cannot be compromised.
	Would Freeman accept a rollback of the semi-auto import
	ban if the Kalifornia 15-day waiting period was part
	of the package? I wouldn't, because the precedent of
	accepting a Federal waiting period is too high a price
	to pay; it would absolutely guarantee more trouble down the road.

	Thus, there are limits on what is acceptable in a true
	compromise; while Freeman may agree with this, he's
	not given any sign of such agreement so far, to my
	knowledge.

<   ><   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.

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

<   ><   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.

	Take a couple of aspirin and call us when your temper
	cools down, please.

<   >	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?

	Which state law changes and where, please?

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

	Some did one, some did the other. From what I can see, 
	the loss of the Senate to the Democrats made further
	progress very difficult, while giving the anti's 
	free rein to play catch-up. The loss of the Senate
	to the Democrats was thus much more significant than
	what the various pro-freedom groups were doing or trying
	to do, because it completely reversed the "slope" of
	the playing field; changing the Judiciary committee from
	friendly to hostile is NOT a trivial change.

	Or is Freeman asserting that it doesn't make any difference
	who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns