Militia Radio Frequencies • Hacker News Board

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#41

Post by ptomato » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:03 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #32

zekevermillion wrote: post #12

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just…

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets…

The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers.

Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#42

Post by hga » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #32

zekevermillion wrote: post #12

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just…

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets…

The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways.

All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings).

Too powerful for drywall.)

I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home.

and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.

They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington

ADDED: So, given all the real civilian world civilian utility they have, for a lot of men you could view them as modern versions of accessorizing a car.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#43

Post by rconti » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

seangrant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget these people had every intention to use those weapons against humans. This isn't some guns club hanging out.

Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.

Right.

Carrying a firearm = self defense. Fine. Someone might attack you, you can defend yourself.

Occupying land that is not yours = protest action. Fine. You'll probably get arrested or at least sent on your way, but fine.

Occupying the land AND carrying a weapon to defend yourself isn't just like "oh man, if someone tries to rob me during my protest operation, I'll be able to defend myself!" No, it's tacitly admitting that people are going to come and arrest you, and you expect to put up a violent fight.

Nobody's under any illusion that the police are going to march in there, put handcuffs on everyone, and walk out.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#44

Post by thecoffman » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:12 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #32

zekevermillion wrote: post #12

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just…

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets…

I agree with almost everything you've said here with the one exception being that an AR-15 is actually an excellent home defense weapon.

Drywall penetration depends on which tests you're looking at but generally speaking it penetrates walls less than or at least not more than any standard pistol or shotgun round and its more likely to fragment on impact.

As a sibling pointed out, the overall length of an AR is actually less than that of the commonly recommended shotgun, making it easier to handle in tight hallways. (Though its arguable that you shouldn't be doing much moving at all in such a scenario).

I would also add that the recoil on an AR-15 is vastly more manageable than a pistol or shotgun making you less likely to hit things you don't intend.

I'm in 100% agreement with the other stuff however. The "tacticool" segment of the market is basically adult dress-up.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#45

Post by jcranmer » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

zekevermillion wrote: post #12

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just…

The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little.

The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me."

To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#46

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

seangrant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget these people had every intention to use those weapons against humans. This isn't some guns club hanging out.

Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.

> Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them.

Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system, and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end game, were they not arrested before that escalated further, wasn't "hunting down people and assaulting them".

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#47

Post by ocdtrekkie » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #46

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.

> Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system , and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end g…

That's a lot of speculation. And also immaterial to the point.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#48

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #47

dragonwriter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system , and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end g…

That's a lot of speculation. And also immaterial to the point.

> That's a lot of speculation.

The only speculation is that they would, if not constrained by intervening events, carry out their overt threats in support of their overt goals. That's not a lot of speculation at all.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#49

Post by morsch » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:30 PM UTC

twothamendment wrote: post #29

Interesting read, but it almost paints anyone who owns a Baofeng as a terrorist. It does do a great job of showing how lame it is to think that those radios will help in a standoff like that. If the government was going to go in, you can bet the first thing they'd do is jam those cheap radios. For anyone interested in ham radio, there isn't a better place to start. Without these cheap, not-as-good-as-something-that-c…

I'm not involved in any armed popular uprising, but I do sometimes go on mountain hikes, would these fit the bill there? Like when the group separates and you try to stay in contact over a few kilometers (no line-of-sight). We had some cheap radios along a few years ago, no idea what kind of technology, but the reception was useless.

Re: Militia Radio Frequencies

#50

Post by tedks » Tue, Feb 02, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #45

zekevermillion wrote: post #12

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just…

The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (Nati…

This is a naive and over-optimistic post. You're allowing the horns-effect bias to overcome your rationality.

The world we live in is big, and there are a lot of different people in it. Some of them are smart, and some of them are stupid. Some of them are leftists, some of them are rightists.

There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss. There are, undoubtedly, militant right-wing militia members who have a very strong grasp of military strategy, insurgency strategy, insurgent tactics, and are planning to use these to fight their enemies.

By their very nature, you will not know about these people. They will not occupy a federal office in a dramatic attempt to coerce the state into doing what they want it to do. They will be completely invisible until they decide to act, and when they do, it might not even be clear that they are acting if they don't want that.

Intelligent people who are happy and healthy and well-fed rarely turn to these sorts of things, but the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring. Further, since the Internet is essentially causing massive global-scale group polarization, it might be much more likely for an intelligent person who might otherwise hold moderate beliefs to be radicalized. It can happen, and because it has billions of chances to, it almost certainly will.