From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Compromise
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul21.233048.15385@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul23101115@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul23.224019.26285@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:18:28 GMT

<In article <1992Jul23.224019.26285@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
<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.  
	
	Why, please? Could it be the *way* that "no trade" is
	pitched by ACLU vs. the *way* that "no trade" is pitched
	by NRA?
	
	Could it be the *way* that "no trade" by ACLU is 
	*reported* to the middle, vs. the *way* that "no
	trade" by NRA is *reported* to the middle?

	I'm not suggesting a round of press-bashing, fun though
	that is; I'm suggesting that the ACLU has used what
	press coverage it gets in a more effective way than
	NRA. I'm suggesting that ACLU uses grass roots
	organizing better than we do.

	There's a lesson here, if we care to learn it.
	
<   ><   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.

	Fine, we disagree a whole lot less than I suspected.

<   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.

	This is rather convoluted; I assume you are saying that the
	actions of the "no-compromise" class in opposing deals
	makes it difficult to oppose giveaways cloaked as deals,
	yes?

	Could you give an example from real life, please?

<   ><   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.

	Huh? Failure of a "we get" provision to work as advertised
	is not relevant to the question of "is no compromise better
	than dealing"? 

	Freeman is asserting that deals are good, yet also asserting
	that if a deal blows up it is not relevant to the issue
	of "was the deal good"?

	I strongly disagree; if the deal looks, walks and talks
	like a giveaway....it's a giveaway.

<   Laws are binding on BATF; 

	I'm sure that J. Curtis Earl, John Lawmaster and quite
	a few other folks would be interested to hear this.

	What was the name of that Pennsylvania State Trooper
	who impoverished himself defending against a bogus
	BATF "illegal machinegun possession" charge?

	Apparently the laws against perjury aren't binding
	on SOME BATF agents.

<Taylor is just mad because the law didn't
<   work as he hoped.

	Thanks for telling me what I think, Freeman. 
	Obviously, you didn't take the aspirin I suggested
	last time.

	Think: if we cut a deal and it goes sour, what do we do?
	Sue? If the venue is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
	we may as well stay home; we'll lose and the Supreme
	Court will do what they did in Farmer...nothing.

	Perhaps Freeman is angry with me because I'm trying
	to get him to look at reality, instead of his ideal
	vision?

<   ><   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.

	Fine. Give me ONE example of a successful trade, under
	the above description, from *real* *life*. 

	I'm not interested in ideal, Platonic concepts, I'm 
	interested in workable deals; if Freeman cannot show
	one which has been cut and stayed cut, then he's talking
	about "the ideal world", not reality. The ideal world
	has certain useful concepts, but those concepts are not
	always directly applicable in the real world.

<   ><   >	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.

	Sigh. I'm trying to determine what REAL WORLD deal is 
	Freeman's idea of "good deal"; the fact that he continues
	to evade suggests that he either doesn't *know*, or 
	is aware that his idea of a "good deal" has not worked...
	in either case, his deriding of "no compromise" comes from
	some philosophical point of view, NOT from real experience.

<   ><   >	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.

	Thanks for cutting the context out, Freeman. 
	McClure-Volkmer PROPOSED allowing interstate handgun
	and long gun sales; what we got was interstate long gun
	sales. Thus, we used a form of salami tactics; we asked
	for 2 things and got one, instead of asking for 1 and
	getting none.

	I've asked Freeman if he thinks this is a good or bad
	deal, because I want to find out what *real* *world*
	deals he finds attractive or unattractive; this will
	give me a handle on what he's talking about when he
	says "deals that work are better than no compromise".
	
	I'm wondering why it is that Freeman doesn't want
	to talk about reality, but prefers to talk about
	some fuzzy ideal which he won't spell out.

<   I'm not going to discuss "was this a good deal" wrt McClure-Volkmer
<   details.  

	Why? Can't you discuss the real world? Do you prefer
	some ideal which cannot be described to reality?

<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.

	I will spell it out for you in plain text: There can be good
	deals. Gun owners can make good deals. 

	What is Freeman's idea of a good deal? Is McClure-Volkmer
	Freeman's idea of a good deal or not?

<   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.

	I disagree. What trade would have benefited us that could
	have been inserted into HR-3371 last fall?

	We were strong enough to make "no compromise" stick, therefore
	by Freeman's above paragraph we could have made a good deal;
	so what should we have done?

	I suspect that Freeman won't answer this part (except to
	say that "it isn't relevant") because it deals with
	reality and not with the ideal.

<   ><   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.

	Yes, Freeman wrote "we could have pulled it"...but
	he's the one writing in favor of deals; McClure-Volkmer
	was a deal. McClure-Volkmer was a FLAWED deal, because
	of the poison pill inserted late at night. 

	Why does Freeman resist in writing, in plain text, whether
	he thinks that McClure-Volkmer was a good deal or not?

<   ><   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've already answered these. I've also asked Freeman
	what his idea of a good deal is; since he continues
	to refuse to answer, can we assume he doesn't know
	or should we assume that his idea is some unworkable
	concept?

<   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.

	I've already noted that "no compromise" works on giveaways;
	Freeman finally admitted that he finds "no compromise" useful
	in that situation as well.

	Freeman seems to live in some la-la land where BATF always
	obeys the law; unfortunately, BATF doesn't have an address
	there as well.
	
	I've pointed out that even the best of "deals" can turn
	around to hurt us; Freeman dismisses such cases with
	a wave of the hand, yet doesn't explain how to avoid them.

	I've pointed out that the ACLU does very well with the 
	"no compromise" position; there is a lesson there, if we
	choose to learn it. Freeman dismisses the lesson, seemingly
	finding no relevance in it to firearms ownership.

	I've asked time and time again what kind of *real* *world*
	deal Freeman can point to as validation of his opinion;
	yet he's tapdanced around and refused to answer.

	Why?
	
<   ><   >	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.

	Freeman is asserting that contacting pro-gun pols
	has nothing to do with cutting deals that are good for
	gun owners?

	Why? Did he contact his Congressional delegation during
	the McClure-Volkmer debate? I certainly did.

<   ><   >	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.

	ACLU goes after small wins, and ACLU does well with
	"no compromise". Is there a lesson here?

	Freeman probably will deny it.

<   >	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.

	The analogy is absurd. Would you give up your eyes
	for either one? How about your legs?

<   >	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.  

	Freeman has refused to describe in any way what
	kind of a "deal" is acceptable to him....since he
	refuses to answer, questions must be asked of a
	wider scope in order to try to narrow his position
	in some fashion or other.

<My explicit statements reject those positions.

	In THIS article, Freeman has rejected those positions.

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

	Tsk. Freeman ascribes positions to me that I do not hold,
	yet refuses to describe his own position. When asked
	questions intended to try to get SOME kind of a grasp
	on his positions, he gets huffy, takes his dolly & dishes
	and goes home.

	Take a couple of aspirin, put your feet up & lay off
	the net for a few days, that's my suggestion.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns