Oh Yeah, That's Some Commerce Right There

Julian Sanchez | November 2, 2005

Brad DeLong has this to say about Sam Alito's ruling that private possession of a machine gun didn't seem to fall under the federal Interstate Commerce power:

I genuinely don't understand how machine guns are not part of "economic activity." Wouldn't most people who use or threaten to use machine guns use them to get money--often through transactions that cross state lines?

I hope that wherever the Constitution-in-Exile is in exile, it is a warm, happy, peaceful friendly place. Because I want it to stay there for a long time.

DeLong gets props for a good headline ("The Constitution in Exile Orders a Mojito") but less so for the logic here. First, what's the evidence for the premise? Most people who'd own machine guns would use them "to get money" (presumably criminally)? Really?

But it's actually the inference that follows from this (or, rather, the assumption that makes the inference work) that's really striking: If X could be used to obtain money through an interstate transaction, mere possession of X falls under Congress' commerce power. Now, it should be pretty obvious that almost anything qualifies under that definition. The clothes on my back? I could sell them on Ebay. The books on my shelf? I surely might quote from any of them in an article for Reason (which cuts my paycheck at HQ in California). Just about everything in my home, though not in what you might call kinetic commerce, is surely at least potential commerce. The thing is, of course, DeLong's right: Hoary precedent supports that view, and if he "genuinely doesn't understand" how someone could think all those Xes weren't supposed to be subject to federal regulation by the Commerce Clause, well, he's got the mainstream view. And somehow, it's still kind of mindblowing to be reminded of this.

Comments

|11.2.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Wouldn't most people who use or threaten to use machine guns use them to get money--often through transactions that cross state lines?

I would submit that more money is made from renting Title II NFA items to non-owners than from robbing banks with them.

In fact, in the 70+ year history of the NFA, there is only one recorded instance of a legally possessed machinegun being used in a crime. A cop in Ohio in the late 1980's used his legally possessed Mac 10 to shoot an informant.

Suffice it to say, that if this is indicative of Brad Delong's thought process, he must be a shmuck.

|11.2.05 @ 5:37PM|#

Most of the people I know who own machine guns just want to be left alone to pursue their hobby.

|11.2.05 @ 5:41PM|#

correction: all machine gun owners I know just want to be left alone to pursue their hobby. I don't know a single one who's ever seriously considered using theirs for a criminal purpose.

Why the fuck does the liberal left have to be so dense when it comes to guns? The automatic prejudicial assumption is that a machinegun owner is a criminal? rrrr.

|11.2.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Why the fuck does the liberal left have to be so dense when it comes to guns? The automatic prejudicial assumption is that a machinegun owner is a criminal?

Because guns, and machineguns in particular, are freakin' fun.

One of the coolest memories I have is of shooting a WWII-era Tommy Gun.

|11.2.05 @ 5:50PM|#

One of the best parts about being a machinegun owner is watching people have a hell of a good time shooting your guns.

|11.2.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Brad DeLong is a fuckwit. But logic was never the anti-gun segment's fort� anyway.

|11.2.05 @ 5:53PM|#

Julian, or anyone who takes a non-mainstream view-
How would define interstate commerce?

|11.2.05 @ 5:55PM|#

What ever gave Brad DeLong the idea that he had anything to contribute to legal discussions? And why would anyone else pay him for these opinions?

|11.2.05 @ 6:01PM|#

Honestly, I've never even heard of the guy before.

Should I have?

|11.2.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Antonin:
Julian, or anyone who takes a non-mainstream view-
How would define interstate commerce?

"commerce among the several states". Among does not mean "within," just as "inter" does not mean "intra". Commerce was, at the time the Constitution was approved, used to refer to the movement of goods for sale. Arguably it might include goods to be used to make other things for sale, but I'm not aware of any documents supporting this view.

|11.2.05 @ 6:05PM|#

(Slightly off topic):

mediageek - hell yeah, they're fun. A friend and I rented an MP5 one day and spent 2 hours at the range. Full auto, 3 shot burst, and single shot until the muzzle was so hot it would burn your hand if you accidently rested any exposed skin against it and the damn thing actually started to jam.

Anyway, we get home and my roomate is there. We're talking with her, and she asks, "What in the hell have you two been up to?" We tell her we'd just been shooting a submachine gun. "Bullshit," she tells us, "you look like the cat who just ate the canary."

It took some convincing for her to believe that we were only shooting a gun. An extremely fun gun to shoot, that is!

|11.2.05 @ 6:08PM|#

So if I took a machine gun across state lines and used it (or threatened to use it) to "get money", his focus is on a questionable violation of the Commerce Clause, therefore guns are bad?

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:09PM|#

How would [you] define interstate commerce?

When someone in one state does business with someone in another. It must involve monetary transaction (commerce), and it must involve more than one state (interstate). The purpose of the clause was to solve the problem of conflicting rules between one state and another when such commerce took place.

|11.2.05 @ 6:12PM|#

The purpose of the clause was to solve the problem of conflicting rules between one state and another when such commerce took place.

Not to mention the fact that it was meant to "regulate" it, as in "make it regular," not to inhibit it. They wanted to maximize commerce between the states, not make people jump through hopps to do it.

|11.2.05 @ 6:12PM|#

The MP5 is hella fun. Had a chance to put a mag through an MP5K a couple months ago. A full afternoon though? I'm jealous.

|11.2.05 @ 6:13PM|#

er, hoops

|11.2.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Shelby,
Clearly this could not mean Congress only has power at the precise moment a good crosses a state line. Otherwise the power means nothing at all. So then the question is when does a thing enter and exit commerce? To give a specific example, if a farmer grows wheat that he wants to sell to other states, at what point is the wheat an item of commerce subject to Congress' power?

|11.2.05 @ 6:14PM|#

So if I took a machine gun across state lines and used it (or threatened to use it) to "get money", his focus is on a questionable violation of the Commerce Clause, therefore guns are bad?

Yeah, pretty much boils down to this Brad guy being a myopic bigot.

|11.2.05 @ 6:16PM|#

Clearly this could not mean Congress only has power at the precise moment a good crosses a state line.

Clearly, it means that Congress only has power over commerce at the precise moment a good crosses a state line. The other powers of Congress are just as neatly spelled out in the Constitution, and just as neatly limited.

|11.2.05 @ 6:18PM|#

To give a specific example, if a farmer grows wheat that he wants to sell to other states, at what point is the wheat an item of commerce subject to Congress' power?

That specific example was addressed by the Supreme Court in a rather ill-informed decision, the name of which, I forget at the moment. Which is something you probably already know, given your choice of pseudonym.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:22PM|#

So then the question is when does a thing enter and exit commerce?

When parties from different states contract with each other. I believe this essentially involves contract law and taxation.

|11.2.05 @ 6:23PM|#

SUPREME COURT REGULATES HOW MUCH SEX YOU CAN HAVE WITH YOUR WIFE

Washington-
The Supreme Court ruled today that states can regulate how many times per day a couple is allowed to have sex. In a unanimous decision released this afternoon, the court said that because your wife could potentially be out selling her ass on the street in a neighboring state, the amount of times a husband has sex with her has a definite impact on how much interstate commerce she could potentially be engaged in. Said justice David Souter "Every woman has only a limited amount of poon to rent out. If said poon is occupied by her husband, this could potentially prevent potential customers from another potential state from potentially having sex with the potential prostitute. The Interstate Commerce Clause clearly grants us the power to regulate such activity."


Any more ridiculous than some recent rulings?

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:25PM|#

In the comment thread to his own post, DeLong says:

"Remember the 1930s? The Supreme Court decided in Roosevelt's second term that the federal government did have plenary power to govern the nation, hence the "Congress shall have the power to regulate public health, safety, etc." amendment was never needed. Alito wants to reverse that whole line of Supreme Court decisions..."

At least he's being more honest here, implying that the Supreme Court has by caveat passed its own constitutional amendment.

|11.2.05 @ 6:27PM|#

Excuse me, I misread the earlier post. The case to which I was referring addressed a farmer who wanted to grow grain for his own use only, not with the intent of selling to customers in other states.

The Court decided (erroneously in my opinion) that because he used his own wheat, he had an effect on interstate grain prices (no matter how infinitesimal) and therefore his grain production could be said to be interstate commerce.

I would go farther and say that the farmer should be able to sell entirely within his state without interference from the federal government. If a subsequent buyer of his grain wished to sell interstate, it would be she who would bear the burden of interstate commerce.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:37PM|#

dave,

Good one. Yea, the statist view of the government is that it basically can do anything it wants, limited only by specific limitations expressed (or, such as with the right to privacy, implied) in the constitution and by whatever it finds a bad idea. So your example may never come to pass because maybe (hopefully!) no Congress will ever think it's a good idea, and maybe (maybe maybe) a Supreme Court might find it a violation of privacy. But the fact that the Constitution does not grant such power is irrelevant to statists, who, obviously, have won the argument, legally speaking. I always ask our good friend joe if this is his view, and he never answers.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:44PM|#

Antonin,

Y'know, I'm not an expert in the laws of commerce or in Constitutional history or law, so my answer may not be comprehensive. Perhaps, for instance, Congress could regulate how much wheat a fellow could send by truck from one state to another. In a very literal sense, this may not be interstate commerce because no one is transacting money right as it crosses the state line, but possibly because he intends to sell it in the other state it would qualify. I could see the argument both ways. I would need to do more research than I care to to come up with a firm decision on that.

But when it comes to ownership of something within one state, it does not take expertise but mere common sense to see that that is not interstate commerce.

|11.2.05 @ 6:45PM|#

db, you still haven't answered the question. Can Congress regulate the wheat farmer who intends to sell his wheat to other states in how he plants his crop, how he harvests it, how he stores it, how he prepares it, how he packages it, how he sells it? Does it attach when he forms an intent to sell? What if he only intends only to sell part of his crop interstate?

|11.2.05 @ 6:45PM|#

Does that mean that if a man fucks his wife a lot, then she becomes more valuable on the sex market due to her decreased availability? Or is that just like a dealer snorting 50% of the cocaine he has to sell to make it more scarce?

|11.2.05 @ 6:46PM|#

I would be even more restrictive in my reading - Congress should only have a say when a good for sale (a hooker, say - that's a good, solid libertarian example) actually crossed a state line; but Congress would keep silent if customers crossed the line to patronise said lady of pleasure in her state of residence. Moreover, Congress ought to be in the nature of an arbitrator rather than a legislator; ie, if one state required all prostitution to occur in a licensed bordello but its neighbour allowed street-walking, Congress would broker an acceptable compromise so that the sex trade could go on unimpeded.

|11.2.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Antonin,

I wasn't aware you were asking those questions.

First off, "to regulate" doesn't mean (in the original sense) "to place restrictions on," it means "to enable regular access to." So, no, in my view, Congress does not have the power to place commerce-restricting limitations on individual (or corporate) participants in commerce.

What Congress is granted the power to do is to hinder the States' ability to place restrictions on commerce between them.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 6:51PM|#

Antonin,

No, the federal government cannot control how much wheat a farmer grows regardless of what he plans to do with it. Growing wheat is not interstate commerce. Now, if he calls up someone in another state and makes a deal to sell his wheat to that person, the federal government can set the ground rules for that transaction. If someone trucks wheat across states lines to sell it in lieu of having a specific deal with anyone, the federal government can probably have a say in that (see my previous post).

If this seems to limit the federal government's powers too much, oh well. That's just what a government of enumerated powers is about. If you want the government to have more powers, pass a constitutional amendment.

|11.2.05 @ 7:00PM|#

"First off, "to regulate" doesn't mean (in the original sense) "to place restrictions on," it means "to enable regular access to." So, no, in my view, Congress does not have the power to place commerce-restricting limitations on individual (or corporate) participants in commerce."
That's an interesting reading. How do you explain the statute involved in first significant commerce clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden? That statute was a licensing law for coastal trading. If an original understanding of the commerce clause doesn't allow Congress to place restrictions on interstate commerce, then why did one of the first Congresses feel it had the right to do so? And why did this early Supreme Court agree?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.2.05 @ 7:04PM|#

I want a got dam machine gun. I'm sick of the varmints eatin' all my plants.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.2.05 @ 7:10PM|#

First off, "to regulate" doesn't mean (in the original sense) "to place restrictions on," it means "to enable regular access to." So, no, in my view, Congress does not have the power to place commerce-restricting limitations on individual (or corporate) participants in commerce.

I didn't know that. I guess I wasn't paying attention in English.

I like it, too. Gonna have to look that up because that opens up whole new worlds of arguments for me.

|11.2.05 @ 7:25PM|#

I'm with fyodor. Growing wheat isn't commerce, but selling it is. Congress could say "Wheat sold across state lines must meet such-and-such conditions", but if somebody only wanted to sell his wheat within the state, then only state law should apply.

What if he sells it to somebody in his state who sells it across the state lines? Well, if it isn't in compliance with federal law then the feds can go after the middle man, but not the farmer.

Seems like common sense to me.

|11.2.05 @ 7:41PM|#

I want a got dam machine gun. I'm sick of the varmints eatin' all my plants.

A machinegun is probably the least effective, though most therapeutic, firearm you could choose for that application.

;-)

|11.2.05 @ 8:12PM|#

Of course, Fafblog nailed this one, but on the medical marijuana ruling. DeLong usually likes Fafblog...

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/wonderful-world-of-commerce-insolent.html

Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The Wonderful World of Commerce!

"Insolent pot!" says Giblets. "Be more vendible!"
"Giblets why are you yellin at that pot plant?" says me.
"Giblets is trying to turn it into commerce," says Giblets. "But buying and selling it is too much work. He wants it to be commerce NOOOOOWWW!"
"Silly Giblets, everything is commerce!" says me. "Let's step into this maaaagical schoolbus and we will learn all about Our World Of Commerce!"

|11.2.05 @ 8:41PM|#

Machine guns smachine guns. This is the beginning of the old slippery slope argument: where to draw the line? Machine-guns got a bad name for themselves during Prohibition, and have kept that rep with Untouchables remakes.

So how about Nukes? I think making a home-made nuclear weapon would be very interesting. And fun. But I don't think it would be legal, nor should it be. The argument in favor of privately-owned nukes is not so different from that for machine-guns. It's just a small matter of scale.

No, the constitution doesn't have an escape clause for nuclear arms, any more than it does for fully automatic arms.

MP|11.2.05 @ 8:56PM|#

No, the constitution doesn't have an escape clause for nuclear arms, any more than it does for fully automatic arms.

You're right. The framers didn't anticipate WMDs. That's why they included an amendmendment process.

|11.2.05 @ 9:22PM|#

The best way to interpret the commerce clause without going back to original intent and still give it meaning, in my view, is to look to the act and determine whether it is economic activity. Possession can in no way be economic activity. Hiring, selling, buying, trading, manufacturing, consuming, destroying, and growing can all be economic activities.

Of course, if one went back to the original intent, the test would not be whether the activity is "economic", as the constitution asks only whether the activity is commercial, that is, buying and selling. But reverting back to such a narrow federal role is too unlikely to be worth discussing.

|11.2.05 @ 10:36PM|#

Antonin,

fyodor is right, he's not a constitutional scholar. The pansy Court of 1937 granted Congress the means to regulate anything it wanted with regard to farming, including how much a farmer could grow (with 'market orders,' i.e., enforced quotas), and, eventually, shit like what pesticides he could use and how often. If they felt like it, Congress could dictate how many outhouses he had to have on his farm and where they were placed--even if he didn't sell a single seed in interstate commerce.

|11.2.05 @ 10:48PM|#

The argument in favor of privately-owned nukes is not so different from that for machine-guns. It's just a small matter of scale.

There's a huge difference. One can own and shoot a machinegun without any danger of causing personal injury or property damage to another. I do it at least once a week during the summer.

The owner of a nuke, however, has pretty much no chance of exploding it without causing measurable harm to even a small number of other people.

Actually, absent other restrictions, one could argue that a nuke could be lawfully possessed under the National Firearms Act as a registered Destructive Device, if the owner posessed a valid, approved Form 5320.1 (if self-manufactured), Form 5320.3 (if a licensed dealer in DDs), or Form 5320.4 (if an individual).

It's actually lawful for one (depending on the laws of one's locality and state) to posess hand grenades and other explosive devices, if they are properly registered as Destructive Devices in the National Firearms Regsitry Transaction Record. The reason most DD fans don't ever get grenades is that each one must be registered, and a $200 tax must be paid when it's transferred to them. (That, and it's probably really hard to get a manufacturer of grenades to sell them to civilians, even though it can be lawfully done.)

In fact, those "flash-bang" grenades that SWAT teams love to use when mounting an assault are DDs and each has to be registered as such (although for LE agencies the registration is tax-free. In addition, once the ordnance is expended, the transferee has the responsibility to notify the BATFE that the item should be removed from the Registry. Rumor has it that this seldom gets done, and that many police departments are technically in violation of the National Firearms Act because they have failed to update the BATFE's records in such circumstances.

|11.2.05 @ 10:49PM|#

Antonin,

fyodor is right, he's not a constitutional scholar. In Nov. 1942, SCOTUS eviscerated the Commerce Clause by giving Congress the means to regulate anything it wanted with regard to farming, including how much a farmer could grow (with 'market orders,' i.e., enforced quotas). Some mark that event as the day the Constitution went into exile.

|11.2.05 @ 11:19PM|#

The fact that private nuke ownership could even be an issue is a sad comment on libertarians.

My own take on the question of how much military hardware you can own is simple: If the police are allowed to own it, you should be allowed to own it.

I can't justify it from any axiom of libertarian philosophy, but it's a reasonable balance of different considerations, it avoids absurdities, and we'd be a hell of a lot more free than we are right now if the law said what I propose. That's good enough for me.

|11.3.05 @ 12:24AM|#

I'll happily argue the merits of private nuke ownership when there are no longer laws on the books stating that you can be thrown in jail for putting a bayonet on a rifle.

Equating private ownership of a machinegun, even something like a 20mm electric gatling gun, to a nuke is just a really obvious way of telling the rest of the world that you're nothing more than a slobbering, helmet-wearing moron.

|11.3.05 @ 12:36AM|#

No, the constitution doesn't have an escape clause for nuclear arms, any more than it does for fully automatic arms.

So, if the 2nd amendment doesn't cover fully automatic small arms, I suppose that the first doesn't cover speech disseminated through use of digital offset printing presses, ink jet printers, telephones, movie cameras, high-resolution digital still cameras, blogs, email, radio, CD, DVD, MP3, AIFF, MPG, MOV, magnetic tape, television, VOIP, websites, internet forums, video games, or any form of streaming media.

|11.3.05 @ 1:08AM|#

My own take on the question of how much military hardware you can own is simple: If the police are allowed to own it, you should be allowed to own it.

I think your dead on thoreau. (I'd use the term "spot on", but I'm not Hugh Grant)
:-)

I want a got dam machine gun. I'm sick of the varmints eatin' all my plants.

Amen!

A machinegun is probably the least effective, though most therapeutic, firearm you could choose for that application.

I agree mediageek, however a more effectictive firearm, say a .223 or hell even a .22LR can be be pretty damn satisfying when your looking over the corpse of one of those annoying varmnits with a large hole blown through it's torso. :)

|11.3.05 @ 7:50AM|#

A nuclear weapon would be comparable to artillery, and artillery was never seen as part of the individual weapons right in English law or as that law evolved in English America prior to 1791.

|11.3.05 @ 8:31AM|#

"What Congress is granted the power to do is to hinder the States' ability to place restrictions on commerce between them. "

Give that poster a gold coin!

The Commerce Clause was essentially intended to keep states from enacting tariffs against each other, or creating blatantly discriminatory laws against trade from other states.

It was not meant to address purely intrastate issues, nor was it meant to address issues of state law that applied equally to trade within the state (i.e. the recent gun suit ban).

Antonin shows that once you go beyond this very limited conception of the Commerce clause, there is no principled limit to it.

|11.3.05 @ 9:05AM|#

When it's illegal for libertarians to own nukes, only criminals (governments) will own nukes.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 9:10AM|#

Commerce Clause was essentially intended

ok, but we can also agree that the second amendment was intended to guarantee popular militias and the third amendment was intended to keep redcoats out of people's homes. do either of those have any application?

the fundamental weakness in naked archaism, it seems to me, is that the situation has changed. with respect to the commerce clause, the united states isn't any longer a loose confederacy of independent farming states with some associated territories -- it is a tightly welded political and economic empire. the states are not, as they were once, essentially independent economic entities.

in many respects, i agree with many here -- the commerce clause has become the primary means to the end of an involved imperial government, and that is not good. but it behooves us also to understand that the scope and nature of commerce in the industrial era and our agrarian constitution are, in this respect, ill-fitted -- and it is the constitution that must change or die. while the commerce clause may be abused, it's wide application is also a necessary consequence of what the united states has become.

the trick, it seems, is to forge a new solution that allows for an integrated economic body of regulation without putting the legates of the imperial city in every home and every shop.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 9:16AM|#

I want a got dam machine gun. I'm sick of the varmints eatin' all my plants.

accuse me of elitism if you like, but handing out machine guns to every southern yokel is likely the end of government, not its foundation. it was one a workable idea, perhaps -- when the population of the united states didn't consist of dimly-lit alienated proletariats and irresponsible nihilistic escapists with a deep-seated complex regarding authority figures. but that time has past. government in decline is largely about threats, and for the sake of mere order that can't change short of a new social consensus.

fyodor|11.3.05 @ 10:20AM|#

the trick, it seems, is to forge a new solution that allows etc, etc...

It's called "constitutional amendment." It does not mean, or at least SHOULD NOT mean, the Supreme Court decides what the solution is.

|11.3.05 @ 10:34AM|#

ok, but we can also agree that the second amendment was intended to guarantee popular militias and the third amendment was intended to keep redcoats out of people's homes. do either of those have any application?

Coming from a man who slavishly fellates the middle ages at every turn, I find this statement delightfully entertaining.

ccuse me of elitism if you like, but handing out machine guns to every southern yokel is likely the end of government, not its foundation. it was one a workable idea, perhaps -- when the population of the united states didn't consist of dimly-lit alienated proletariats and irresponsible nihilistic escapists with a deep-seated complex regarding authority figures. but that time has past. government in decline is largely about threats, and for the sake of mere order that can't change short of a new social consensus.

Gaius, I'd like you to meet my friend, Fuck-All About Guns.

Fuck-All About Guns, meet gaius marius.

There, now, gaius, you know Fuck-All About Guns.

Quite frankly, despite the neato factor inherent in machineguns, they are generally far less effective than employing aimed fire from a semi-automatic or manually operated firearm.

Quite frankly, the last thing an ignorant Illinois-dwelling serf with his head up the 14th Century's dark, dank asshole needs to be pontificating upon is firearms.

|11.3.05 @ 10:35AM|#

Apologies for the overuse of "quite frankly."

|11.3.05 @ 11:40AM|#

The Supreme Court, during the John Marshall era, screwed up the Commerce Clause by reading into it an implied extension that Congress has the power to regulate activities that "affect" interstate commerce, and not merely IC itself. From that decision (was it Gibbons v. Ogden or McCulloch v. Maryland? I forget) onward, the entire jurisprudence has been one long slippery slope of the Court finding that more and more things "affect" interstate commerce and are therefore subject to federal regulation.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 12:03PM|#

There, now, gaius, you know Fuck-All About Guns.

actually, mr mediageek, i'll bet i've emptied more rounds than 95% of the posters here. i did grow up in american ruralia, you know. you aren't normal if you haven't killed a deer or five.

Quite frankly, the last thing an ignorant Illinois-dwelling serf with his head up the 14th Century's dark, dank asshole needs to be pontificating upon is firearms.

lol -- such vitriol, mr mediageek! get a hold of yourself! :)

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 12:06PM|#

It does not mean, or at least SHOULD NOT mean, the Supreme Court decides what the solution is.

i'm not against your solution, mr fyodor, though i fear what the results of that process might yield. it seems no party in leadership of our recklessly plebiscitarian society is capable of such a task.

|11.3.05 @ 12:27PM|#

gaius, you know Fuck-All About Guns.
Quite frankly, despite the neato factor inherent in machineguns, they are generally far less effective than employing aimed fire from a semi-automatic or manually operated firearm.

This comment is so staggeringly ignorant (as well as unnecessarily abusive) that it is making my ears bleed. "A machinegun is less effective than aimed single shots". Well, there are a million dead soldiers in Flanders who would strongly dispute that (frankly weird) judgement.

Here's a test. Go up to any soldier, of any nation. Say to him "Would you rather go up against a machinegun with a rifle, or up against a rifle with a machinegun?" Defence or attack, doesn't matter. What do you think his answer will be, O Mediageek?

In 1914 the British army had two machine guns per 500-man infantry battalion. In 1964 they had one per ten-man infantry section. By 2014 they will have one or two per four-man fire team. I imagine that most other armies have done roughly the same thing. Why have they done this?

They have done this because a machinegun is much, much better in combat than a rifle.

|11.3.05 @ 12:37PM|#

actually, mr mediageek, i'll bet i've emptied more rounds than 95% of the posters here. i did grow up in american ruralia, you know. you aren't normal if you haven't killed a deer or five.

You only serve to illustrate your ignorance.

lol -- such vitriol, mr mediageek! get a hold of yourself! :)

I'm enamored with vitriol. Put it on my Wheaties in the morning.
I've grown tired of criticism from people whose knowledge of firearms and the gun culture is so thin as to be two-dimensional spouting off as if they know what's best for me.

So far as I'm concerned, this makes you worthy of nothing more than the most venemous contempt.

fyodor|11.3.05 @ 12:40PM|#

i fear what the results of [what] that process might yield

But gaius you fear every damn thing that's happened since the Middle Ages. So what's new?

ChrisO,

I think you've hit it on the head.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 12:58PM|#

You only serve to illustrate your ignorance.

lol -- really? because, in looking back at your comments here, mr mediageek, i don't really see a position staked beyond (pardon my paraphrasing) "machine guns give me an erection, and anyone who gets in the way of my erection is fucked."

i'm at least making an argument about the need for change in the constitution based on a changing society. what argument are you making, that i'm ignorant of?

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 1:03PM|#

The Supreme Court, during the John Marshall era, screwed up the Commerce Clause by reading into it an implied extension that Congress has the power to regulate activities that "affect" interstate commerce, and not merely IC itself.

if it goes back to john marshall and gibbons v odgen, mr chriso, it's hard to make the argument that it wasn't part and parcel to the opinions of the founders themselves. is that really a "screw-up" in a meaningful way?

|11.3.05 @ 1:14PM|#

This comment is so staggeringly ignorant (as well as unnecessarily abusive) that it is making my ears bleed. "A machinegun is less effective than aimed single shots". Well, there are a million dead soldiers in Flanders who would strongly dispute that (frankly weird) judgement.

1) The number of men killed with machineguns in WWI was a result of antiquated military tactics (Massed onrushing of troops running towards the enemy) being employed against a tool that outclassed the technique. Were we still using massed-infantry techniques that date back to the Romans, then you might have a point.

If my comment is staggeringly idiotic, then I suppose that the ruminations of no less than Col. Jeff Cooper, who fought in multiple wars, and is widely credited with being the most innovative man in small arms combat of the last century renders him idiotic as well. To say nothing of more than one man who I've met who has been there and done that.

It is generally acknowledged that full-auto fire has it's place- primarily as a way of getting the enemy to keep his head down. Other than that, it's a waste. Even the US military acknowledged as much when they removed the full-auto feature from the M16 rifle in favor of a 3-round burst.

Here's a test. Go up to any soldier, of any nation. Say to him "Would you rather go up against a machinegun with a rifle, or up against a rifle with a machinegun?" Defence or attack, doesn't matter. What do you think his answer will be, O Mediageek?

Again, you present a situation obviously derived from WWI massed-infantry tactics. Of course in any such situation where massed forces are engaging head on, one wants the largest amount of firepower available. This does not change the fact that most casualties are inflicted with aimed fire. Otherwise, why has the US Army and Marine Corp. put so much emphasis on training snipers who employ bolt-action rifles? There has been more than one report from the current war in Iraq emphasizing how such marksmen have been invaluable.

By 2014 they will have one or two per four-man fire team. I imagine that most other armies have done roughly the same thing. Why have they done this?

Because, as I said, massed fire does have it's place. Those from a previous generation might point to a general lack of effective marksmanship training for the current Army enlistee, but I can't speak to experience, so it's idle conjecture on my part.

To rebut, I will point out that the US Marine Corp. still very seriously adheres to the maxim of "Every Marine a rifleman" and trains them all to quite high standards employing primarily semi-automatic aimed fire.

If full-auto fire is so much more effective than aimed fire, perhaps you'd care to explain the lack of a body count from the North Hollywood bank robbery?

If full-auto fire is so much more effective, then why would every rifle issued to a soldier still include a selector for single-shot semi-automatic fire?

It's called "Spray and Pray" for a reason.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 1:24PM|#

why would every rifle issued to a soldier still include a selector for single-shot semi-automatic fire?

economics. :)

|11.3.05 @ 1:42PM|#

lol -- really? because, in looking back at your comments here, mr mediageek, i don't really see a position staked beyond (pardon my paraphrasing) "machine guns give me an erection, and anyone who gets in the way of my erection is fucked."

Gaius, I would expect you to be able to at least mount a coherent argument without slipping into the standard Freudian crap about guns being some sort of substitute for one's penis.

The interstate commerce arguments have already been made in this thread. I see no reason to repeat them.

Ultimately, it boils down to a matter of property rights and trust. Were you possesssed of any sort of trust for your fellow man, you would have no problem with him owning any form of small arm, regardless of whether his reasoning is for putting together a historical collection, or whether machineguns do, indeed, give him an erection.

i'm at least making an argument about the need for change in the constitution based on a changing society. what argument are you making, that i'm ignorant of?

No, you're not arguing anything about a changing society. You are, as always, projecting your fear and hatred of individual liberty on the issue at hand.

Allow me to repeat your argument:
"...handing out machine guns to every southern yokel is likely the end of government, not its foundation."

Your argument is no more different than every single argument that has been put forth by the anti-gun movement from day one.

Your argument is to broadly paint those who enjoy firearms as nothing more than inbred hilljacks is nothing more than an illustration of your elitist bigotry.

Then you follow it up with fear-mongering blather about "blood in the streets."

This tactic has been used by the anti-gun crowd every time they don't get their way.
-Liberalized Concealed carry will result in blood in the streets.
-Refusal to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons" will result in blood in the streets.
-Refusal to renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons" will result in blood in the streets.
-Liberalizing gun possession in DC will result in blood in the streets.
-Allowing competitive shooting events in the Olympics will result in blood in the streets.
-Lack of mandatory "safe storage" laws will result in blood in the streets.
-Refusing to ban certain kinds of ammunition with a scary name will result in blood in the streets.

and on and on and on.

The only thing you're doing is putting that vaguely creepy, midieval veneer of yours onto arguments that have been resoundingly debunked time and time again.

wingnutx|11.3.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Machineguns have their place, but in a fight between 2 individuals I'll put my money on a single well-placed shot over spray-n-pray any day of the week.

If I want to defend a defined sector from a fixed position or force a group to keep their heads down, then gimme a crew served, automatic weapon.

gaius marius|11.3.05 @ 1:57PM|#

Were you possesssed of any sort of trust for your fellow man, you would have no problem with him owning any form of small arm

i agree, mr mediageek -- as i've said elsewhere here, our problem isn't gun ownership per se. it's the lack of social concord that makes distributing machine guns to a populace that's already in a state of low-intensity urban warfare a horrifying idea. at this point, i reassert: "handing out machine guns to every southern yokel is likely the end of government, not its foundation."

fear and hatred of individual liberty

is that really what you think i'm about, mr mediageek? it's as if you read the half of my comments you can hate, and ignore the rest as inconvenient context and mitigation.

Your argument is to broadly paint those who enjoy firearms as nothing more than inbred hilljacks is nothing more than an illustration of your elitist bigotry.

decidedly not -- i'm one of those "inbred hilljacks", after all. my argument is that we need some semblance of concord and social peace before we take such steps. i'd rather be disarmed in the interest of social peace than more heavily armed in anticipation of social war.

|11.3.05 @ 3:05PM|#

i agree, mr mediageek -- as i've said elsewhere here, our problem isn't gun ownership per se. it's the lack of social concord that makes distributing machine guns to a populace that's already in a state of low-intensity urban warfare a horrifying idea. at this point, i reassert:

What the fuck are you yammering about? Low-intensity urban warfare? Perhaps your point of view is skewed by your location. The only places in the US that could come within a country mile of that description are all havens of positively dictatorial levels of gun control.

Most of that violence, by the way, is a direct result of this country's futile war on drugs.

is that really what you think i'm about, mr mediageek? it's as if you read the half of my comments you can hate, and ignore the rest as inconvenient context and mitigation.

Well, given that I'm hard pressed to think of an example where you've trumpeted the cause of individual liberty, yeah, that's pretty much what I think you're about.

R C Dean|11.3.05 @ 3:13PM|#

The fact that private nuke ownership could even be an issue is a sad comment on libertarians.

No, its a sad comment on people who have to rely on straw men rather than engage on the merits.

i'd rather be disarmed in the interest of social peace than more heavily armed in anticipation of social war.

Spoken like a good German Jew circa 1935.

Larry A|11.3.05 @ 3:55PM|#

I believe it was Gen. Pershing (U.S. CO WWI) who said, "For the soldier who can't hit a German helmet at 200 yards a machinegun nest is an impregnable fortress. To the soldier who can, it's a stationary target."

When I taught basic we used to run a demonstration. We'd take three recruits with full-auto M-14 E2s and give the three of them six targets. A drill sergeant would have a semiauto M-14 and six targets. Invariably he would knock over his six silhouettes, wait for the recruits to run out of ammo, then knock over their remaining silhouettes.

You can't miss fast enough to win.

|11.3.05 @ 7:01PM|#

No, its a sad comment on people who have to rely on straw men rather than engage on the merits.

Are you saying I should have laid out the case against private nukes rather than dismissing the notion as insane?

|11.3.05 @ 7:03PM|#

As to auto vs. semi-auto, the debate misses the point. I want a TV gun! No recoil, unlimited ammo, perfect accuracy, what's not to love?

The only problem, of course, is that the gun jams when there's only one bad guy left, forcing a fist fight. But that problem is easy to solve: In addition to my TV gun I'll keep a regular gun as backup.

|11.3.05 @ 10:18PM|#

gaius:

The tactical deployment of a machine gun is just different. It is great for holding ground if you have flunkies to feed you ammo. If you have to take the show on the road or into an urban structure, not so much. I lie not one bit when I say I would prefer a 9mm pistol to a GPMG if the field is a randomly chosen urban structure.

Current military doctrine is to engage with semi auto fire unless you are assigned suppression duty. The value of automatic fire is its ability to keep heads down while more accurate fire advances, flanks, or retreats if things get out of hand.

I don't know what this has to do with any kind of larger point, but there it is.

|11.3.05 @ 10:20PM|#

and vehicles. Machine guns are fantastic at handling vehicles.

|11.3.05 @ 10:25PM|#

thoreau:

The Official Gun of the Good Guy is the chrome or stainless Beretta 92 series. If you watch Lethal Weapon, at least through the second one, Gibbs' Beretta had all of the qualities you were looking for, plus it sounded like a .44 magnum when it fired and suspiciously like a 12 ga pump action shot gun when he chambered his 9mm Round of Fury.

Hollywood protagonists have flirted briefly with other things (the IMI Desert Eagle), but always return to the Beretta. I'm sorry, but your Sig is just too boxy to qualify - and you probably need more chrome.

wingnutx|11.3.05 @ 10:36PM|#

You hurt my SIG's feelings with that one :~(

|11.4.05 @ 1:20AM|#

Having just recently watched "Land of the Dead" I have to agree with Jason.

As much as it pains me, because I'm not a real big fan of the Beretta in real life.

Perhaps they'd just let me stick with the Mateba...

|11.4.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I lie not one bit when I say I would prefer a 9mm pistol to a GPMG if the field is a randomly chosen urban structure.

What, you have some sort of irrational aversion to being able to shoot through brick walls? I hope all my enemies think like you.

This does not change the fact that most casualties are inflicted with aimed fire.

No, most casualties are inflicted with artillery. (In high-intensity war, that is. LIC/policing is a bit different.)

And the point of a single-shot function is indeed economics - or rather the limited amount of ammo that a rifleman can carry. Not to mention the light weight of a rifle; fire automatic with most rifles and the third and subsequent shots will go into the air, unless you are either very good, very strong or very well-braced. (A fact which has kept a lot of squaddies alive when facing insurgents firing AKs on automatic.)

Again, you present a situation obviously derived from WWI massed-infantry tactics

It's just so precious when you say that no infantryman has ever had to attack a machine-gun position since the Great War! I love career civilians.
Once again, if machine guns were not more effective in combat than rifles, armies would not be replacing rifles with machine guns. Would they?

|11.4.05 @ 11:28AM|#

What, you have some sort of irrational aversion to being able to shoot through brick walls? I hope all my enemies think like you.

Well, given that in a self-defense situation where one is defending one's domicile from a home invader, then yes, being mindful of the neighbors and choosing a firearm that reduces the risk of overpenetration might be, as Martha Stewart would say, a Good Thing™.

No, most casualties are inflicted with artillery. (In high-intensity war, that is. LIC/policing is a bit different.)

Um, we were talking about small arms, genius.

Not to mention the light weight of a rifle; fire automatic with most rifles and the third and subsequent shots will go into the air, unless you are either very good, very strong or very well-braced.

So you admit that full-auto fire is wasteful and not as effective. After all, if your subsequent shots are going high and not hitting the enemy...

(A fact which has kept a lot of squaddies alive when facing insurgents firing AKs on automatic.)

Aren't you contradictiong yourself? If the insurgents are firing on full auto, and full auto is the deadliest thing EVER, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the insurgents would be, you know, way more effective?

It's just so precious when you say that no infantryman has ever had to attack a machine-gun position since the Great War!

I never said that. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position. Besides, you were the one who wanted to use a WWI battle as your prime example.

Once again, if machine guns were not more effective in combat than rifles, armies would not be replacing rifles with machine guns. Would they?

And where did I ever say that full-auto fire was ineffective? You are deliberately misrepresenting my argument, which just isn't cricket. And even if militaries have increased the number of machineguns they've issued, it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of troops are issued rifles.

Again, if full-auto fire is so much more devestating in every situation, perhaps you'd like to tell me about the massive body count from the North Hollywood bank robbery of a few years ago.

|11.4.05 @ 11:51AM|#

ajay:

I'm telling you that anyone who knows how to clear a structure would prefer a sidearm to an M60 for that purpose. If you are in the service, what did they teach you for MOUT? Even a standard 16 has to be held goofy to keep you from getting killed inside a structure. Hauling a pig through a doorway is a great way to get dead before you can see the hard corner. A pig or a SAW is undeployable in a hallway unless you are the first guy in the conga line and the threat is exactly at 12:00.

To say that MGs serve no purpose is silly, but to argue that you could replace rifles with MGs is equally so. MGs are area denial and suppression weapons.

We are increasing the squad level deployment of SAWs and GPMGs so that every squad has one, not so that every infantryman has one.

wingnutx|11.4.05 @ 12:10PM|#

I can't put it any better than Jason just did, so I'll just agree with him.

Guess what, I'm a squad leader with 3 ARs at my disposal, not a 'career civilian'. I'm not all that high-speed/low-drag, but I'm not some schmuck who watches too many movies, either.

Unless I have a fixed position to defend then give me a carbine or rifle, any day. Indoors, the shorter the better, and even with an M4 I will have tho short-stock it over my shoulder.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Are you saying I should have laid out the case against private nukes rather than dismissing the notion as insane?

No, I'm saying anyone who chimes into a discussion about machine guns with a comment about nuclear weapons is obviously toting a straw man around, and deserves to be politely ignored.

gaius marius|11.6.05 @ 1:05AM|#

Low-intensity urban warfare? Perhaps your point of view is skewed by your location.

it is, mr mediageek. but then, most of us live in cities and not on the range.

Just how do you propose we go about bringing such concord and social peace into being?

some humility among us all would be a great place to start, mr mediageek. but i fear that the only way to go from hubris to humility is catastrophe -- ate, as the greeks called it.

I can think of no other example that so wonderfully illustrates your suicidal belief that all members of society should be forced to bow before the graven image of some feudal, un-elected, un-examined, and un-questioned state.

you truly haven't listened to anything i've actually said, mr mediageek. i've lost a great deal of respect for your capacity to read the opinions of others reasonably.

|11.6.05 @ 3:30PM|#

you truly haven't listened to anything i've actually said, mr mediageek. i've lost a great deal of respect for your capacity to read the opinions of others reasonably.

You know, capital letters to more clearly mark when one sentence ends and another begins would help boost comprehension a lot.

As a professional communications type, I'm just sayin'.