OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Equipment and Frequencies (wordpress.com)

An anonymous reader writes: On January 2, 2016, the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, United States, were occupied by armed members of rump militias in one of the longest-running law enforcement standoff in American history. The Radiomasterreport blog, using publicly available information, wrote an OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Radio Equipment and Frequencies. The research results has astonishing conclusions: far-right patriot militas openly carrying +3000$ AR15 rifles and US military body armour also use cheap 30$ unsecure chinese Baofeng walkie talkie radios with no encryption whatsoever. Any simple ham radio operator , police scanner owner, or even some folks with a Software Defined Radio can receive those militia communications.

Comments

Wannabe soldiers

[spiritplumber]

have no concept of operational security. And now to Ric Romero with the news!

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[OverlordQ]

Well a non-trivial number of these guys are former military and so during that time, they just had some poor asshole who carried the radio and even if they used it, they never had to worry about encryption, it was somebody elses job.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Patriots standing up for civil rights.

I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.

Also, I like how you complain both about how the police now have to wear body cameras in one sentence and then complain about them turning them off in another. Nice cognitive dissonance there.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[bobbied]

Look, to be fair, off the shelf radios with encryption are not easy to afford and are difficult to manage.

But that doesn't mean they don't have OPSEC here, it just means they don't encrypt the audio. There are other ways to obscure what you are saying enough that the listener may not be able to easily figure out what you are communicating. Using code names for things, altering numeric data in reversible ways all are easy to implement, don't require encrypted radios and provide a measure of OPSEC without the expense or logistical key distribution problems.

Besides, all the tactical information the government really needs would be observable even if they had encrypted radios. The problem is that once you hit that transmit key, it's like you are striking a match in a dark room and revealing your position no matter what you say. Tactically, knowing where things are is the most important, followed by knowing when they are communicating. Anything more is nice, but unnecessary if you are interested in making an armed assault.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Militiamen are morons? Who knew?

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting a fire to your own land to control weeds, ettc. is not a crime. That fire getting out of control and burning into neighboring jurisdictions is not all that uncommon. The BLM burned thousands of private land by accident several years ago by doing that same thing.

The two people that owned the land served their time, but a US Attorney with a stick up his ass wanted them charged as Terrorists and got what he wanted.

So the next time you bitch and moan about some hacker being charged as a terrorist, you can just shut the fuck up, because you think a Rancher, doing what ranchers do, should be considered a terrorist.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[shaitand]

"I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right."

That is a deliberate characterization. Right or wrong, the issue was that the land became government land because the government seized Native American and private property. Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.

Agree or disagree, that is your right but deliberately skewing the issue and spreading misinformation might serve to get more people to agree with you now but ultimately that behavior only serves to increase the divide and animosities among us. Justice and truth are on only found in having to make your case while giving full due to any valid points of the opposition. Just as freedom and democracy are only found on the other side of refusing to tolerate any legal shortcuts that bring about the ends you want. For instance, if you want to see gun restrictions, you should fight against any measure other than a constitutional amendment to allow that possibility, allowing the government to get away with anything less is illegal, unconstitutional, and opens the door for the government to disregard the constitution on other matters you would not be so inclined to agree with. This point of hindsight should be 20/20 by now.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[shaitand]

The revolutionaries fighting the crown were also bat-shit loons with guns, whether they are patriots and martyrs or not now is only a function of whether or not they succeeded.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.

An "accidental brush fire" that happened to burn up evidence that the two men in question had committed numerous offenses related to poaching and was corroborated by a member of their own family. The two men in question also publicly stated that the people occupying the facility in no way spoke for them, and most of the locals, including local Paiute Indians, wanted the "protesters" to leave as well. As I said several times already, these people committed a modern day Jon Brown's Raid, committed an openly hostile act against the United States government, and should be treated accordingly.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me play a bit of devil's advocate here. The claim is over federal land and grazing rights. The US Constitution allows for the possession of lands by the federal government for a very specific number of uses, typically summed up as "forts and ports". The federal government is not empowered to take lands from a state and declare it a wildlife preserve, national park, federal grazing lands, or whatever this case may be. It is not a military post.

IMHO the situation could be resolved very quickly by the state declaring that the federal government no longer holds possession of the disputed land. If the Constitution was followed in the first place this would never have been federal grazing land. If the Constitution is followed now then the state can tell the feds to go home, they own the land now. Then the issue becomes a state matter. The state can permit the ranchers to raise cattle on the land or make it a state wildlife preserve and make the people leave with state law enforcement.

The states in this federation of ours seem to have forgotten just how much power they have retained when they created the federal government. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. Therefore the states can tell the federal government to leave.

Another possibility, other than the state's losing its backbone, is that the state doesn't want the ranchers there either. By allowing the federal government to maintain the ruse that they have the authority to declare land for federal use for things other than a military post the state can make the federal government fund this effort of making the ranchers leave.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[TsuruchiBrian]

It seems as though a few in the latest standoff have been lying about their military careers.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, to be fair, off the shelf radios with encryption are not easy to afford and are difficult to manage.

Nah, it ain't that difficult. Just put a 'p' before words and talk very fast, like this: p-off p-the p-shelf p-radios p-with p-encryption p-are p-not p-easy p-to p-afford p-and p-are p-difficult p-to p-manage.

It's called 'affordable encryption'. It works! I use it all the time! :)

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[cat_jesus]

The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.

This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing the p-language wrong. It should be
O-poff thee-pee she-pelf ra-padi-pi-o-pos wi-pith...

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

TBH, I am glad there is Federal land still. If you give lands to the states, they will sell it at once, and now you have just private property that ends up getting mined or turned into a toxic waste dump. At least the BLM has land that people can go to for some enjoyment out of the true outdoors. No private company would ever do that, and if they did, it would cost in the triple digits a day.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

>the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire

No, there was no 'double jeopardy'. They were not convicted twice of the same crime. The sentencing judge failed to follow the legal sentencing guidelines, so the State appealed the verdict, and the appellate court imposed the legally mandated sentence. There was no 'double-jeopardy' happening here - that's just dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons who don't understand the law.

No, nobody got persecuted for 'accidentally' setting a brush fire. The criminal conviction was for INTENTIONALLY starting a fire on PUBLIC land for the purpose of hiding the evidence of illegal poaching of game animals from that public land.

Again, there is nothing to that 'accidental' story but more dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons with a political agenda of violent revolution and anarchy.

And REGARDLESS of the intention behind the illegal acts committed by these anarchists, if you point your weapon at, or charge at or in some other way threaten the police, bad things are gonna happen. Simple as that. It doesn't matter WHAT they thought they were protesting. When you threaten a policeman, you die. I'll bet you're ok with Mike Brown getting killed, and Eric Garner getting killed. Is that because they were black, and black lives do NOT matter to you?

Note carefully how the PEACEFUL and UNARMED protesters of the 'occupy' movement were beaten, maced, and otherwise abused by the police. Were you objecting to that? Or is that different because you didn't happen to agree with their 'cause'? Do you think if some group other than Bundy's Yall-Queida group had done the same thing that the FBI and police would have been so forbearing? If those 'protesters' were black, they'd be called 'armed criminals', and would have been removed from the federal property within 24 hours, probably in body bags. If those 'protesters' were Muslims, they'd be called 'terrorists', and also would have been gone long before now. If they were Native Americans or environmentalists, they'd have been labeled 'armed radicals', and also would have been killed or jailed weeks ago. But no, they're white good ol boys, so they get treated with kid gloves, and are called 'protesters' in the press, rather than the TERRORISTS that they are. There's your 'leftist' media. Not.

This is a classic example of 'white privilege'. For a cop to shoot a white person, the person has to be charging AT the cop. While black people are shot while running AWAY from the cop.
N_J

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

>The federal government is not empowered to take lands from a state and declare it a wildlife preserve, national park, federal grazing lands, or whatever this case may be.

And by exactly the same argument, the federal government is not empowered to throw citizens into prison for planting politically incorrect seeds on their own property for their own consumption.

Yet they do just that to everyone planting cannabis seeds for either hemp or recreational purposes.

So what was that about the 'rule of law' again?

N_J

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[cayenne8]

Wow? Over $3K for their AR-15's?

You know, you can just buy the lowers, and then get kits to finish them out in a pretty highly custom way and the kits are only in the $1500 range for some really nice gear.....what are these guys thinking??

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[110010001000]

Bullshit. "Devils advocate" my ass. The US Constitution does NOT limit the possession of lands to "forts and ports". Clause 2, Article 4. This Supreme Court has ruled on that repeatedly. You "patriots" are a bunch of liars and freeloader welfare queens. That is when I know I met a "patriot" nutter: when they mention the "forts and ports" lie.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Their charge has as much to do with the kind of terrorism you're implying as the PATRIOT act has with patriotism. Aka you should know better than care about the name of the bill.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[sumdumass]

Look into the mead public lands. Peabody coal mines, sunny creek coal, and AEP (ohio power) does the same. Private companies do it all the time.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[istartedi]

I think you mean Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[sumdumass]

You are correct which is why states that have legalized it have provisions to keep it intrastate in their laws and as long as it doesn't cross an established interstate commerce line the feds cannot do squat about it. That's was the entire premise behind medical use and how it got around the fda and Colorado's recreational legislation.

Also, Unless you are directly in federal jurisdiction, the feds do not prosecute for drugs and defer to the states. Actually, this is true for most federal crimes outside of ones justified by constitutional amendment that gives congress powers to make laws to enact or ensure the amendment.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[ultranova]

have no concept of operational security.

Or are purposefully providing 24/7 live media coverage to shield them from the Fed's far superior firepower. Which, if true, is pretty clever.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

They were charged under it and sentenced to a longer term that what they already served. the first judge refused to so so because he considered it an 8th amendment violation.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[sycodon]

Sure. Because Arson is a lessor crime than poaching.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[thoromyr]

shame i ran out of mod points...

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

I must apologize, I am white and cannot remember the last time I got high on PCP, walked down the middle of the street wielding a knife and shouting that I was going to murder my ex-girlfriend. Therefore, I can only conclude that is the reason why I have not been shot while walking towards or away from a police officer.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[bkr1_2k]

"These guys" are not the people with the actual weapons and they don't actually know anything about modifying lowers or kits or anything else. Just like the wannabe soldiers, the people reporting this are wannabes trying to make themselves sound more important than they actually are.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[bkr1_2k]

The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.

This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.

And this is the problem with people who spout "left" or "right" instead of thinking for themselves. they over-simplify issues, generalize the "other" as "stupid" or "thoughtless" or just as a whole, rather than as thinking individuals, and they make themselves look like assholes.

The "left" and "right" are both wrong. Thinking about a subject on its merits (rather than because it's your side's point of view) is the only way to rationally and intelligent consider anything.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Note carefully how the PEACEFUL and UNARMED protesters of the 'occupy' movement were beaten, maced, and otherwise abused by the police.

I was thinking about that, too. It's an interesting point, but I don't think it's just dependent on the presence or absence of firearms. I suspect that the location of the 'occupation' matters a lot. For example, if these same militia guys tried to 'occupy' any building on Wall Street, I'm certain they would find themselves SWATted faster than you could say 'insider trading'.

On the other hand, if Occupy Wall Street showed up in Oregon, I think that their protest would not last as long as the protest by the militia guys, due to the 'peaceful and unarmed' aspect. So, yeah.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[WaffleMonster]

I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution.

Due to Medias complete and epic inability to provide any useful context as to "why" these people were there in the first place I felt it necessary to waste hours reading legal transcripts of jury and sentencing to try and sort it all out.

It is very easy for someone who lives in cities to make these comments about setting fires portraying the Hammonds as crazed pyromaniacs. Controlled fires are routinely used to control invasive species and pests, reduce potential for dangerous uncontrolled fires, provide for growth of grasses used for grazing. Fires are set regularly to manage public and private lands all over the world. Sometimes controlled fires get out of control and cause unintended damage.

What the Hammonds did was sneaky, dangerous, stupid and illegal. They did not properly get permission to set their fires, they set a fire to cover for illegal deer hunting, trespassing, strong arm a ranger into not telling on him..etc. They were sentenced and did time for their transgressions.

The problem with Hammonds going back to jail has to do with total complete and utter bullshit. A "terrorism" bill invoked by setting of fires even though none of this had anything to do with anything even remotely related to terrorism demands a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. The Judge who originally handed out the sentence deemed this to be way over the top for crime and refused to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence.

Eventually this argument was lost in a higher court who upheld the mandatory minimum sending Hammonds back to jail. These people are not terrorists, militia members, rebels or freedom fighters they publically stated they don't want Bundy's help, they just wanted to go to jail and do their time.

Text of a totally unrelated terrorism bill is overriding common sense of Judges imposing unnecessarily harsh minimum sentences on an old man who is regarded highly in his local community and all everyone talks about is the stupid assholes with guns occupying little shit buildings in the middle of nowhere.

Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.

Personally I'm waiting for more facts to be known about the circumstances of his death before making a judgment. If he died pointing weapons at law enforcement then he deserves what he got.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, you can buy a perfectly servicable AR-15, and fit it out with the accessories you want to change, and end up with a really nice rifle for under $1k.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[donald.dade]

Securing peer to peer communications, I mean securing them in any way that would make the effort worth it, is hard. How do you ensure that all the equipment will work together? How do you share keys? How do you keep the compromise of a key from compromising the entire network? The article said the radios were chinese, so how do you do all of that without running afoul of ITAR export regulations and EAR? How do you do this without ballooning the cost of a radio that was supposed to be $30? How do you do this in a way that can be deployed quickly, when the owner wants to go into the field? How do you do this in such a way that requires no coordination between all those that would communicate, but none of those that you don't want to be able to communicate?

The answer, more often than not, is that there is no viable solution. Apparently there often isn't, for things like RQ-4 missions, where imagery is unencrypted.

If you're something like a GMR radio, you can plan for encryption as part of mission planning. If you're just a guy with a gun and an ideology, you probably can't. Doesn't mean you're stupid.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe read the actual charges - he didn't just set fire on his own land, he set fire on public land. He also set fires in zones where firefighters were fighting fires. Being a firefighter, he can kiss the darkest part of my white irish ass. That kind of shit can get firefighters killed.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

The ranchers were charged under an arson statute, not a terrorism statute.
The fact that said statute was passed as part of a bill that *also* included anti-terrorism statutes is completely immaterial.

The charges involved no less than 3 separate incidents which resulted in the illegal burning of roughly 140 acres of federal land.
They were properly charged, tried, and convicted, but improperly sentenced.
The sentencing judge handed down a sentence 4 years short of the statutory minimum sentence.

The improper sentence was appealed, and was corrected on appeal to be the minimum term allowed by law for the crime for which they were sentenced.
During the appeal process, the ranchers served out the initial (improperly short) sentence, and were released, because it would have been improper, and irreparable, to hold them longer if the appeal went in their favor.)
The ranchers turned themselves in without fuss, and are busy serving out the remainder of their sentence.

The 'militia' folk have no association with the convicted ranchers, except in the minds of the 'militia' folks.
The ranchers in question told them they didn't need, or even *want* their 'support', and they could just go bugger off.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Cramer]

True. But the radios the US military uses don't have to obey any rules of any nation. They sure as shit don't listen to the FCC. Look up the specs on those fancy Harris encrypting radios they have everywhere. (I could go to jail for just holding one of those things. :-))

First, those chinese radios are, to the letter of the law, illegal in the US -- they violate MANY rules for GMRS and FRS radios; plus, if they're like the ones I have, they arrive with FM transmit enabled. Encryption is absolutely illegal; and the cost and complexity keeps it out of the market.

(as with all things, the loophole is encrypting things before it gets to the radio. i.e. WEP/WPA/SSL over WiFi, VOIP + TLS, etc. In short, the radio didn't encrypt it.)

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're being punished because you broke the law? Whether or not the cop has a camera has fuck all to do with your inability or unwillingness to drive a car in accordance with the applicable ordinances.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

$1500? Are you crazy? You can get a OCR from your local sporting goods store for half of that!

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Achievement Unlocked! Superior Trolling
Achievement Unlocked! Master Race-baiter
Achievement Unlocked! Fox Butterfield Is that You?

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Which doesn't help you as the language of the clause requires the territory belonged to the United States in the first place. If I understand the GGP correctly, that land did not originally belong to the US Government. Seems like a conflict of interest if they can take the land then justify using this clause.

Of course that wasn't much of an obstacle to the penal-tax, so who knows?

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[istartedi]

Ammendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Emphasis mine. In the case of Oregon, it may have been part of the Louisiana Purchase and thus Federal land by default (not sure about the actual history of titles in that case), or it may have been a park later acquired via eminent domain. Regardless of how it was acquired, I'm pretty sure it's Constitutional for the Federal government to own land for any purpose it deems fit for public use.

The taking of land via eminent domain and then the immediate re-purposing of that land for private use is far more controversial and I think it may still be in lower courts than SCOTUS. There were some notorious cases of this back east, and that's where you'd have a strong case against eminent domain taking. As for these renegades, it sounds to me like they want to take land that was acquired by the Feds and convert it to partial private use after a considerable period of time has passed. That's an entirely different matter. Another interesting case would be where the Federal government had taken so much land in a region that they have effectively killed the private market in that region, and whether or not such a government monopoly violated some inherent right. I'm not aware of any cases being brought with such an argument being made.

At any rate, the renegades have checked the last box, and we're seeing the predictable results...

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

...these people committed a modern day Jon Brown's Raid, committed an openly hostile act against the United States government, and should be treated accordingly.

I know that Civil War history is taught differently depending on the area in which one grew up. Hell, the south doesn't even call it the Civil War, but instead the War of Northern Aggression.
Growing up in a Union (Midwestern) state, we were always taught that Jon Brown was a noble guy, regardless of his failure. The fact that he gained much sympathy in the northern press resulted in the southern states moving closer to outright secession.

On an unrelated note, I really don't know what to think about the current issue in Oregon - a lot of contradictory things being said about it. However, I do feel as if there is A LOT of astroturfing in the press, including a lot of +5 comments on this article that I'd normally not associate with typical Slashdot libertarians - very similar to the campaigns of Israel, Microsoft, etc.

I don't doubt that the US government employs a lot of contractors to manipulate social media and online forums; this is something that really should be investigated as an affront on free speech and press.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Some mil spec AR15s can run $3000+. Especially mk12 or mk18 replicas. If the barrel length is shorter than 16 inches and you want a suppressor, it's $400 in tax stamps alone. Add in a fancy optic like an Acog or EOTech and you wind up paying quite a bit. For example the Leopold or Nightforce scope on the military mk12 is $2000+ alone.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

I built one of them one piece at at time, Johnny Cash style, from sales and close-out parts for just over $300. It's nothing special, but it's pretty accurate and reliable.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[chihowa]

Do you have a citation for encrypted radio being illegal? It's not lawful to encrypt communications on amateur frequencies, but I'm not aware of any law against encrypting communications on ISM or any unregulated band.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you don't remember the Waco Incident. Cram your white privilege crap up your ass. Is it possible that some police are racists while others are not? Maybe, just maybe, these police were not overly violent and handled the situation correctly regardless of the race of the perpetrators. Why put the lives of innocent police at risk by going in guns blazing when you can just let the situation diffuse without bloodshed. Lastly, you don't fix the injustice that happened, with the many innocent shootings due to race, by storming and killing an equal amount of white people. You fix it by putting an end to police brutality regardless of race.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Note carefully how the PEACEFUL and UNARMED protesters of the 'occupy' movement were beaten, maced, and otherwise abused by the police.

You seem to be forgetting how violent these "peaceful protesters" were.

Bundy's Yall-Queida group

If you are in the right, why are you fearmongering?

Comparing them to Al-qaeda is laughable.

Who have they killed? When was their last suicide bombing, or conventional bombing? How many have they beheaded?

This is a classic example of 'white privilege'. For a cop to shoot a white person, the person has to be charging AT the cop. While black people are shot while running AWAY from the cop.

Fake and gay. The majority of those "Peaceful black men" who were "walking away" from police completely "unarmed" were caught on video assaulting police and pointing weapons at them.

Not to say police brutality doesn't happen, but you seem to assume white people are immune to it when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Instead of screaming "WHITE PRIVILEGE" and "RACISM!", you might want to stop reading the huffington post and look at some actual, verifiable evidence.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[arglebargle_xiv]

They're so exhausted from strenuous days of arguing over the relative merits of M855, Mk.262, and Mk.318 that they decided to leave the issue of COMSEC for a later meeting, once they've voted on whether Bubba looks better in a Feldgrau or Hechtgrau thong.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. So much for OSINT... I don't even do the work myself and I have several (read four or five if you count my son's which is at my house) AR-style firearms. Only one of them is more expensive than $1800. Two are about that price because I've thrown some nice optics on them. One, and only one, is more expensive and two are down below the $1500 number - by quite a bit. One is moron-level expensive but, I've gotta tell you, it's a whole bunch of fun to slaughter innocent paper with it.

They're no the "best" for anything - except maybe customization. They are a whole lot of fun. There's a huge market to make them fairly distinct. They don't really need to be but, as I said, they're a whole bunch of fun when you do. If someone reminds me, I'll post pics (I've never posted pics) of my custom. It was stupidly expensive, as I said, but it's a whole lot of fun and does an excellent job at mass shooting paper.

(It's even a racist. I've noticed a trend, it's constantly hitting the black.)

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I have intentionally ignored much of this - since the first day it made the news. I figured, for that very reason, I would be incapable of being objective and to judge them honestly. I used to be a "volunteer" "smokejumper." The word volunteer is in quotes because you actually get paid for it. I trained to jump, even made practice jumps and fast roped. I never actually had to jump, I always went in with a truck or helicopter or on foot.

When I was a much younger lad, fresh out of the military and the university, I was idealism-filled and full of energy. So, I went and did the training and even went out to a few fires. We trained every year so I kept that training up for about five years. I still only went to a few fires and I've done a whole lot of shoveling.

At any rate, that is the kind of shit that gets people killed, as you say. Because of this, and because I can not be objective, I withhold all judgment and offer no opinions about their actions. I'm a bit biased about people making intentionally bad choices that can harm others. What they may be doing could be justifiable, could be legitimate, could be noble. I can't rightly say. Even if it was, even if they were, I'm not sure I'd be able to be objective in my judgment.

So, well... That's pretty much all I had to add. I agree, entirely, that setting fires can get people killed - needlessly. I worked damned hard to put out some fires, two of which were believed to have been the result of arson. Nobody died but we did have a couple of minor injuries and a person did get have some inhalation issues and had to be evacuated. One was seriously injured in training and that is significant. If people weren't setting fires, we'd not need as many people fighting fires.

Maybe they should have tried the Johnny Cash defense? Hell, he not only set fire to public land but he also managed to harm and endangered species while doing so.

So, unfortunately, I've intentionally remained ignorant and thus I'm unqualified to offer an opinion on the validity of their claims. You're spot on. That's also the reason that I've gone so far as to even turn the radio off when they talked about this event. I can not reasonably judge their actions and would be too likely to opine if I knew more about it - and I suspect those opinions would be negative even if they had merit to this particular act.

On the other hand, I can offer an opinion that it's damned stupid (some times) to set shit on fire. Some times it's smart to burn stuff in a controlled burn. Some times it is smart to burn a section ahead of a fire to make a break. Unless one is qualified to make those choices and has license to do so, do not do so. It's probably a bad thing and can get people killed.

Welp... Off to read the thread. It's hard to read and not comment on something... *sighs* However, I reserve judgment until I know more and can make judgment based on full(er) facts. At this time, I do not believe I'll get full and unbiased facts - from any side. So... Pink and purple elephants fester in my scrotum not entirely unlike fuchsia. That's my opinion on the subject.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

Observation: Right or wrong, people often seem to consider themselves intelligent when they're not. They are not interested in rational or intelligent discussion or consideration. They are often incapable of doing so because of their own biases, it simply creates an environment where they'll use so many logical fallacies that they will hold their views, regardless of facts in evidence, and will insist that others who do not hold that view (regardless of facts in evidence) are unintelligent.

Opinions you are entitled to but you're not entitled to your own facts. These biases, they don't do us any good and help ensure that we're unlikely to get a good solution. More often than not, the answer is somewhere between the two and moderation is a good a place as any to start - it's probably the best place to start. This trend of Team Sport Politics with Talking Points, a scoring system, professional players, pundits, and announcers - really has to go IF we actually want to have meaningful discussions. They've even got team colors.

Both sides assume caricatures of each other and then assume anything that fits those caricatures is representative of the whole.

For the record, by most measurements, I'm considered a Socialist. I'd suggest that I do have a lot in common with a Socialist but that I prefer that mechanism as a pragmatic approach and reached my conclusions based on reason and logic and not on emotions or some need to ensure conformity. I also am not extreme in my views (I don't think) and prefer a blend of systems, as opposed to a single ideology, and think that we need to discuss where the lines need to be drawn, redraw them, and check for benefits or negatives until we achieve the greatest blend of freedom, liberty, protection of the commons, equal opportunity (not to be mistaken for equal outcome), and greatest reasonable level for upward mobility as a whole - while ensuring optimal environments for the individual.

What is my political party? I'm actually a Libertarian. You might call me a Socialist Libertarian but I prefer just Libertarian or Classic Libertarian. The capitalization is because I'm a nominal party member and have been for many, many years. In Europe, the closest would be that of a Social Democrat (I think). In result, as in by method, I'm further to the left of any national-level elected official that I know of. My reasons for holding those views are because they're the most logical views to hold that I am aware of. (I actually love a good debate about them - being forced to defend my views is a great way for me to learn and refine my views - I'm open to change.) I hold those views, that the method is best in some areas - while less than ideal in others, because I also hold the view that it takes wealth to fully capitalize on your freedoms to make greatest use of your liberties.

I realize that phrasing may be confusing to some. I like to describe it like this: You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to do so. (I've also a working analogy to rights, society, and a soup pot - I'm still working on it, I have been for many, many years, and I've refined it fairly well. I think it best to be able to ensure we're using the same definitions and that folks have a clear understanding of my verbiage.)

Ah well... I, err... I don't really get to opine much in this thread - but I can agree, fully, with your post. For better or worse, I agree and it is unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people revert to complete and total morons where politics is concerned. This is not, by the way, limited to just the US. I've been fortunate enough to travel the globe. People are people, no matter where you go. Oh, they may have their quirks and idiosyncratic behaviors (and stereotypes exist for a reason) but they're just people at the roots. This appears to be universal... I've also been allowed into almost every country that I've tried to visit (sometimes during some times of extreme troubles) so I've managed to get quite

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I hold, and offer, no opinions about any of your comments except the two that I will be addressing. Somehow, I doubt that will prevent you from making a whole host of allegations (at least mentally).

One, regardless of positions held, their wanting a government different than your own does not make it anarchy. Anarchy has a rather clear definition. It is not as vague as, say, fascism as a term. These people are not, to the best of my knowledge, anarchic?

Two, you discuss the matter of race and use the OWS movement as an example. I seem to recall the pictures and videos of the police abuses during the OWS movement. I seem to recollect that the vast majority (all?) victims in videos and pictures (that I saw) were actually white. I'm not sure that your points are salient, or that you presented them well if they are. Would not a more simple reason that the cops haven't had an armed intervention is because they have a lot of them, a defensible position, are not actively a threat to others, and they don't want a repeat of Waco? I am not white and I love a good rant but, well, I'm not actually sure that you're correct in your accusations.

Would you prefer, assuming you were the type, to beat on a smelly hippie or a bunch of people who might fight back? Given that many cops are chickenshits, I'm inclined to think that they'd be more likely to abuse unarmed hippies. I'm not much for abusing people but I'd think that it'd be a lot easier to abuse people who can't fight back than it would be to abuse a bunch of people, with a defensible position, body armor, rounds, and firearms. That's just a guess and all but...

So, yeah, while it's a nice rant and all - I'm not entirely sure that it's topical or even remotely related. They might be anarchists but, and I've intentionally not paid attention for reasons given above, I'm pretty sure that they've not indicated a desire to live in a world (you kind of need laws and an actual official government thingamabob if you want borders that define a country) without laws. They might be unlawful actors but I seem to recall that they were just angry about some laws they felt weren't being followed. I can't really be sure and I refuse to look it up. That does not make them anarchists. It may make them criminals but it does not make them anarchists. Not even most criminals seem to actually be anarchists. They're just criminals.

Note: I am not white. I have offered no opinions on anything other than what I have actually written. Chances are very good that if you think you can assume or divine my other opinions based on those remarks - you are probably wrong. In fact, you might want to take a look at my posting history if you think the above indicates any of my opinions on this matter.

TL;DR - That's a nice rant you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone where to apply logic to it.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I'm thinking that it's much more rational to presume that the reason the cops are not pepper spraying these folks is because they've got firearms, a defensible position, body armor, ammunition, and don't want another Waco-type event.

Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...

I know which one I feel is more likely... I'd also agree with your assumption that they'd have some serious problems if they tried this on Wall Street. One notable aspect is that these folks are not, currently, a direct threat to anyone. That's not an assumption they will aways make with regards to armed protesters. They'd be a credible threat to the safety of others if they were on Wall Street - or interpreted as so. (Correct or incorrect, the police are really likely to consider the group a credible threat to the safety of others if they were to do this in a building on Wall Street, simply by virtue of them having firearms.)

Alternatively, they can believe it's because of their skin color...

These people are probably not seen as a threat to others while they remain at their current location. Yes, they've deprived others of their use of that space. However, these are AR-15s. Assuming some are very good shots, you're probably pretty safe at further than 500 yards. You're almost certainly safe if you're 600 yards away. If you give them a full mile, you're pretty safe. Bullets are not magical (not even if you're JFK).

Note: Kindly do not assume anything more than I've said. I did not, nor do I, offer an opinion on this group or the merits of their actions. I have never offered an opinion on this group or their actions. Nothing said should be used to draw conclusions as to my opinions about this group or their actions except to conclude that I've opined that they do not have magical bullets. All opinions offered have been about the responses and possible reasons for those responses by law enforcement agents. I will go out on a limb and suggest that the police also do not have firearms that disobey the laws of physics. I do hold and stand by that opinion until new facts are in evidence. ;-)

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. They were rabble, roused up by their economic masters to protect their lucrative smuggling routes until the French arrived to bail them out.
They really do teach you nothing.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I own a shit-ton of land. An obscene number of acreage is owned by me. After I'm dead and gone, it will go into a trust. Why? To ensure that the public access is maintained as a right. Almost all of the land was owned by a paper company prior to my purchasing of the various bits in auctions. If there's an auction and it is for a connected piece - I will buy it. Hell, even if it is disconnected but there's a probability of the pieces becoming connected, I will buy it. I will exceed any other bid offered but all purchases have been pretty reasonable so far.

In other words, a corporation will hold the land and manage the land and do so to maintain public access.

I even had special signs printed up (as well as some extras) that have the opposite of the normal "NO TRESPASSING" on them. They say, "PUBLIC WELCOME" and, in smaller letters, ask people to care for the land and to take out anything they bring in. I ask motorized vehicles to remain on marked trails. There is a phone number and I ask people to call that number. I don't want them to call it so that I can give them permission, I want them to call and leave a message. No human answers the phone and the answering machine will be checked only in case of emergency. I want them to leave a message saying when and where they went in and what time they expect to leave. That's it. I do not ask what they'll use it for, I do not care.

Note, not all of the land is marked as such. Some of the land is private. That land belongs to me and I reserve the right to limit access. I don't really care if people use it but I may be out there doing things like putting rounds down-range. There is a small area that is reserved for myself and my invited guests. That is not public. Well, it's comparatively small...

The public always had rights to that land and I do not live on that land. Assuming that they cause no harm, who the hell am I to take that right from them? They and those rights existed before I got here. Those rights will exist after I leave. The land produces enough sustainable income by managed wood harvesting that it pays for itself. There will be some money left too ensure that it is secure in its preservation and that those rights are preserved. Individuals can lose access.

I don't hate people, I just don't want neighbors. I also really like the land and I really like that the public has access. They had it before I bought it. As near as I can tell, for as long as there have been humans there have been use rights. A part of it is illegal for me to disallow access anyhow. I own all the area around a large enough body of water that I not only have to allow access, I must allow unmotorized boat access (I do not need to provision access) as I do not have complete rights for navigable waters and inland fisheries containing game fish. Thus, I'm obligated to allow access UNLESS granted an exemption. Err... I've never filed for that exemption. I can not imagine why I would.

But, anyhow, it's kind of funny... A corporation will own it (the corporation is already configured but holds no assets at this time) when I die. It's then mandated to ensure access is continually allowed and will have the investments to generate enough profit to maintain itself and pay the board a stipend for the work put into it. Even if improvements are made, they can not charge for admission. The charter is already written so that any improvements made will be rather limited but they can put in a dock at the pond or even build hiking trails if they ever want to. They can even use profits generated by the land to make improvements. They'll manage those assets and make a percentage of those generated profits up to a certain amount.

There is already a similar land trust and I've had discussions with them and I can not agree to their charter. So, the land will remain undeveloped (not entirely unimproved necessarily) in perpetuity. It is nearly the same amount of acreage as the other trust is in its entirety. I'd wanted to join with them, rather than duplicate effort, but th

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

I've been a little active in getting weed legalized for medical use (with recreational use being the end goal). One of the things that has always made me worry, and we're seeing come into play, is that it may (legitimately or not) be cracked down on due to interstate commerce laws. How? Well... I figured it would happen, and it has. The weed facilitated trend know colloquially as "Green Tourism."

That is (even if they're not bringing it back with them) arguably interstate commerce. It'd suck for them to prosecute based on it but I'd not put it past them to argue it in court and I'd not put it past the courts to find them guilty and then uphold the convictions. It'd be really damned unfortunate. If something can be both legitimate and illegitimate at the same time, that might qualify. Well, let's just say that it might be lawful but it wouldn't be acceptable for them to prosecute based on it.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nehmo]

The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots. This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.

Not only do they need some smart people, but they could use some cute girls too. At least Fox News understands public image.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nehmo]

The word you were looking for is "attached". Double jepordy was not attached.

But as a white guy who was once beat by the police while I was handcuffed*, I suggest that not all police imporprities on their victims are motivated by racism.

*I can provide other stories too.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[KGIII]

Hmm... That makes me think...

Maybe they DO have operational security and their code is hidden in the verbiage? They're saying, "No, make sure you don't brandish your firearm Ted. We don't want to be seen like a threat - remember, we're not going to hurt anybody, no matter what!" What that really means is, "Go down to the watering hole, relieve Joe from his post, and shoot anyone who doesn't use the password - today's password is 'brandish.'"

Said in the clear, you've delivered a recorded sound bite for the media - implied that you're not going to harm anyone, given directions, and let the folks know what the password is and where the password will be in the next communication. There might also be a way to indicate that they're compromised and transmitting under duress. It's plain and in the clear code.

If it were me, and I were high as fuck (I'd have to be to do this sort of thing so that should be assumed), then I'd be having fun with the radio transmissions. I'd be saying stuff like, "Elephants don't wear pajamas and Suzy Tuesday's yellow ribbon can be seen on her left shoulder. Repeat, left shoulder." Oh, it'd be complete and total gibberish and intentionally so. Some of it might actually mean something, to certain people - either internally or externally, and it could be pretty effective during a run-up. It's not likely that they truly need mass, rapid, broadcast communications. Certainly not constantly. I'd probably get sick of it after a few hours and wander off for some munchies.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nehmo]

The political argument is irrelevant. These Bundies are simply such poor ranch business managers that they can't afford the pittance the Fed charges for grazing privileges. They don’t want to pay, and they are disguising their financial dispute as some sort of vague individual rights protest.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[sumdumass]

In a sane country, this issue is already addressed by the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments but I have little faith it would be that easy. The federal government needs to act and either pass a law removing weed from the controlled substances act or create a separate category that allows exemption from it according to state laws.

I don't partake in marijuana and do not really care if it is legal or not. But i do strangly care about states rights and limiting the federal government to constitutional roles (federalism ). Sadly politicians spouting the ideals of federalism likely would ignore this problem and the politicians who do not support federalism seem to only want to ignore the laws effectively always leaving the issues hanging over everyones heads.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, to be fair, off the shelf radios with encryption are not easy to afford and are difficult to manage.

But that doesn't mean they don't have OPSEC here, it just means they don't encrypt the audio. There are other ways to obscure what you are saying enough that the listener may not be able to easily figure out what you are communicating. Using code names for things, altering numeric data in reversible ways all are easy to implement, don't require encrypted radios and provide a measure of OPSEC without the expense or logistical key distribution problems.

Besides, all the tactical information the government really needs would be observable even if they had encrypted radios. The problem is that once you hit that transmit key, it's like you are striking a match in a dark room and revealing your position no matter what you say. Tactically, knowing where things are is the most important, followed by knowing when they are communicating. Anything more is nice, but unnecessary if you are interested in making an armed assault.

Ah yes. The old obscurity for security trick.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[gzuckier]

Setting a fire to your own land to control weeds, ettc. is not a crime. That fire getting out of control and burning into neighboring jurisdictions is not all that uncommon.

make sure your next door neighbor knows that's how you feel.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're conservative because they're stupid."
"They're liberal because they're stupid."

Here, let me fix that for you:

"I'm an idiot asshole for picking a side in party politics rather than looking at the issue at hand and making a determination about what is/is not right."

Fucking moron. Seriously, pull the political brainwashing stick out of your ass and think for yourself for once, rather than make unfounded and broad generalizations without even having a single original thought of your own.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[notonthegrid]

Can't you modify those Beofungs to do encryption just by installing
some new firmware? Seems like it should be really easy to do. I've even had
nightmares that the Chinese could do so "over the air".

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[rtb61]

Just remember that lead is toxic at any level and you are getting a snoot full with every shot. Just want to shoot targets much safer to use an air rifle and not be inhaling lead and the products of the combusted cartridge contents plus what ever you clean the barrel with (also avoid lead pellets with the air rifle). You could be paying a pretty high price for your fun and your children could be paying a worse one.

Gun nuts are very likely gun nuts not by choice but once into the hobby, well, the lead just takes over. Especially bad on firing ranges, hmm, no wonder trigger happy cops are trigger happy cops and it gets worse the more times the practice over the years. Carefully consider what you are inhaling after every shot and is that worth it or can it be avoided.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us do not actually use a whole lot of lead any longer. Or, if we do, it's lined with another material. I'd not say that it's a solved problem but it is a reduced problem. As a firearm aficionado, I am familiar with the dangers of lead and do mitigate it to some extent.

Posting as AC 'cause I'm really high on my post count. I've addressed the new owners so who knows? Maybe that arbitrary limit of 50 posts per day, regardless of karma level you can go no higher, can be adjusted. It seems counterintuitive to enact that restriction to those whom have been deemed valuable contributers by the community.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amateurradio.com/encryption-is-already-legal-its-the-intention-thats-not/

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the Oregons senators speech. The BLM has broke the law repeatedly.

The ranchers were burning their own land as they have done for generations. The fires only burned fed wood lands. BTW there is zero constitutional support for the Feds owning any land except embassies, Washington DC and arguably military bases which technically are state owned in the constitution.

The BLM has burned buildings and burned animals alive, so research before you post

Further the two that went to jail didn't do any of this, neighbors and other people just finally had enough. The behavior of the Feds Ipis getting out of hand.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they weren't discussing that they are going into bankruptcy because the Feds burned their farm killing all the cows in the barn without paying a dime. Every penny gone in a few minutes. Then their neighbors go to jail for 5 years for burning land (not cars or buildings and btw no looting either)

But country folk are stupid that way... They should have burned and looted and threatened cops on the tv and radio. Instead of bringing food to the cops and talking with them about their concerns

You are right in a way they are crazy thinking they will be heard

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[chihowa]

That's a citation for encryption not being lawful on amateur frequencies, which I already covered in my two sentence post. Try again...

The fact is that encryption on unlicensed or commercial bands is perfectly legal.

Encryption aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Baofeng walkies rock. Cheap as shit and I've had a successful link with someone 40KM away with dense forest hills and one major city in the way. All it took was two car mounted antennae. Working on making a repeater box right now.

Re:Encryption aside

[bobbied]

They are great throw away radios that perform fairly well... Use it until it breaks then toss it out as they are not worth the cost to repair.

Re:Encryption aside

[shaitand]

Although it's true they are cheap enough to dispose of rather than repair one might read your comment and think they break left and right. I have a couple myself. They are cheap because the Chinese governent tossed a bunch of resources into beating the market price while producing high quality radios. They fail no more often than any other high quality piece of electronics. They are in fact high quality radios and to get an equal quality radio from another manufacturer will cost a minimum of 400% what baofeng do.

As for the security factor people are talking about, those radio encryption technologies are backdoored and would be useless when the US military is who you don't want snooping.

Re:Encryption aside

[Anonymous Coward]

40km on 5W VHF, likely with something around 6dBi antennas. Mmmhmm... I think you forgot to mention that you were also using a well-placed repeater in the middle.

Re: Encryption aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite possible. I've done 20km LOS to the repeater on 70cm with 10mW into a rubber duck antenna.

Re:Encryption aside

[bobbied]

I concur..

I have two HT's, an FT-6 and a Boefang. I've had the FT-6 about 5 years and the other for about 5 months. Where the Boefang has limited features and limited number of memories, it's as good as the $500 radio at it's business of transmitting and receiving. Of course it's not water proof and it's not a machined metal body like my expensive rig, but I can by 10 Boefang's for the price of the FT-6 and throw a broken one away. Haven't had to do that yet, and I don't expect it's going to be necessary anytime soon, but I also don't expect the Boefang to remain operational for 5 years, but if it makes it past the warranty term, I'll be money ahead.

Re:Encryption aside

[AntronArgaiv]

Is the Baofeng FCC approved?

Comments on Amazon say "not for FRS" (too much power). But they shouldn't be selling them in the US if they're not FCC certified.
Either they are (doubtful) or they're trying to fly under the radar (more likely) and they will disappear from the market soon.

Re:Encryption aside

[bobbied]

The armature radio models are legal for sale in the US. Just be careful because not all retailers have the US version and will honor the warranty. I cannot say about the FRS version, I don't have one.

Re:Encryption aside

[shaitand]

They are legal. But they are capable of frequencies outside the amateur band so as always it's on the operator to follow the rules. There are guides out there to tell you how to adjust the settings to lock them down to legal use. There are also guides telling you how to open them up to their full capability.

The US isn't the only country in the world and the radio rules aren't the same across all of them. Really, the hardware should always be made to maximum capability with responsibility falling on the operator to use the radio legally. The rules could change tomorrow or you could move with your radio to another country or up to space where you are exempt and of course there are always circumstances which trump FCC or even congressional authority.

Re:Encryption aside

[Cramer]

Is the Baofeng FCC approved?

No, they are not. And they never will be... (1) due simply to cost, and (2) because they don't meet FCC rules for FRS or GMRS -- removable antennae, excessive power, operates outside the allowed frequency plan, ... If you hold an amateur radio license, they you can legally operate one, but it's up to you to program it correctly.

Re:Encryption aside

[TsuruchiBrian]

All the more reason for anti-government types to buy them I guess.

+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Eunuchswear]

Someone is stupid enough to py over 3000 dollars for an AR15?

Someone is stupid enough to write 3000$ when they mean $3000?

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[bobbied]

OH... Here I read that to mean 3,000 $1.00 AR15's and I was going to ask where I could get $10 worth for my gun collection...

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[harrkev]

You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see evidence of how many $3,000 AR-15s were in use. If anon wants to make the statement he should back it up.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

They could also be counting all the gimmick stuff to trick them out.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[avandesande]

There are lots of nice ones like LMT for under 2000... 3000 is really stretching it.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it is the 100 round double-drum mags that are included in the price tag... mags which look tacti-cool, but unless the springs are balanced, can result in jams.

There are so many accessories available for the AR line. Most are great for target shooting at a range, but finding what is needed for true combat, and no more, is an exercise in subjective judgement. This is an "ask four people, get five responses" type of question. Even a scope may not be needed compared to a holo sight.

There is of course real world use. Goodies on rails are nice, but I wouldn't want to be on guard duty holding a rifle with all that crap on it.

Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles

[Type44Q]

Well, you'd have to be stupid to mount a shitty $200 scope on a $1000 rifle but a $2000 scope would be another story... and there's your $3000 AR (and not necessarily chambered in wimpy 5.56, either).

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[yodleboy]

Yet USMC recruits qualify with the M16 at 500 yds with iron sights. The push for optics on standard issue military weapons was a response to the increase in close quarter combat brought on by a decade of urban war in the middle east. Many of these optics (like the very popular Trijicon ACOG) have little to no magnification (1x or 4x fixed magnification) You don't need a $1500 scope to be effective, you don't need a scope period.

For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use. I have an AR I bought shortly before Sandy Hook from a local builder for $800 (goes for $1200+ now). It has proven to be extremely accurate, shooting decent factory ammo in 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards and 1 MOA groups out to 300 yards. So, in the 5 shot groups I usually shoot when testing handloads or new factory ammo, that's 5 shots in approximately 1/2 inch at 100 yards and 5 shots in approximately 3 inches at 300 yards. When you are aiming at a man sized target with a vital area in say, a 12 inch circle, how much accuracy do you reallllly need? Even the crappiest AR available for sale will do 3 MOA at 300 yards, giving you a 9 inch "hit zone". A lot of the guys with expensive AR's are either compensating for poor shooting skills, trying to impress their friends, or are doing competition shooting (particulary 3 gun, with the requirement of shooting on the move having, the most inherently accurate rifle possible helps compensate).

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Alypius]

Yeah, the tacticool market is up there with audiophiles...it's a hobby where there's plenty of affordable offerings and a lot of ridiculous snake oil. A Trijicon ACOG scope will run about $1300 by itself, to say nothing of custom compensators, bolt carrier groups, and charging handles. and that's just the beginning. These guys probably bought the $1000-1500 Rock River Arms then bolted on a bunch of aftermarket parts. Of course, it is equally possible they went boutique and nabbed a Daniel Defense rifle.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Nidi62]

The other day I was going to a store right next to an Army recruitment center, and there were a couple of nuts standing outside it with ARs "protecting" it. One looked like he was at least 65 and if there was an attack he would have a heart attack from the stress before he could even get his rifle up. The other guy was carrying what was clearly intended as either a hunting or target shooting model with a longer, chromed barrel and had a standard rifle hunting scope mounted to it. In a real attack someone with iron sighs would have shot him 5 times before he could even acquire a target through that hunting scope, not to mention that a hunting scope would be useless at ranges that close.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really not worth shelling out a lot for the kind of ranges you're really going to be able to hit with an AR offhand. Too many people out there think that those who are proficient in their skills, whether if be shooting or playing a musical instrument or whatever, are at the level that they are because of the equipment that they use.

Give David Gilmour a Squire Strat and he's going to sound 99% as good as what he does with whatever gear he chooses to play on stage. Give me Gilmours best guitar and I'm still going to sound like an eight year old who's never played before fumbling around with it.

If you own a 3000 dollar AR and you're not pounding targets as often as you're watching TV and you can't hit a silhouette target with any reliability at 150 yards? You probably just wasted your money. Plinking's fun but you don't need a great rifle to do it.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Jawnn]

You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.

My dad once told me, "When your clubs are what's keeping you from a lower handicap, it's time to spend more money on them." He also insisted that I learn wing-shooting with a single-shot .410. My golf game still won't be helped much by new clubs, but I'm pretty damned sure that I can get more out of an off-the-rack piece than most of the wannabe's will with their $3000 AR's. It has always amazed me, tools like that, who look like they should be trusted with anything more lethal that a pointed stick, walking around gun shows, or at the range, with arms you just know will be, well... let's just say it, wasted.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[harrkev]

Iron sights can be hard to see in low-light conditions. Simply stated, iron sights are fine when you have a little extra time and conditions are good.

Having a decent red dot just makes thing quicker under more conditions than iron sights.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

By the time you've finished all the modifications on what started as maybe a $500 rifle you'd have easily spent $2000. Honestly it seems like a piss poor way to arm a militia though. AK-47's are more reliable, highly accurate at realistic combat range, and about all you need to upgrade on one would be the stock. Take the other $1300-1400 dollars you didn't waste on your rifle and use it buy more ammo. But you know, gun religion and hate of the commie guns.

A huge chunk of that change you throw into your AR is to convert it to a gas system that is reliable like the AK comes with.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

The problem is everyone with an AR wants to play sniper. In your group of 500 there are maybe 2-3 guys who should be carrying an upgraded rifle like that, and it should be bolt action 308 or nagant with great optics not an AR with it's tiny ineffective round. An AK with a modern stock that doesn't interfere with the iron sights is accurate and reliable at realistic combat ranges. The cheapest $600 AK's can be cleaned up and run side by side with the most expensive so with the new stock you are talking less than $700 out the door and 3-4 hrs of love. You have to spend the cost of an AK to convert an AR to a gas system that approaches reliability.

The AR is a fine platform don't get me wrong and can made as good if not superior to the AK once all the modifications are complete. But dollar per dollar bringing the platform just to the point of being solid, reliable, and combat ready the AR isn't even the same ballpark as the AK. With the kind of tight budgets you have in a militia you should be arming your troops with AK's and using the other $1300-3000 to buy ammunition or other supplies.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[TsuruchiBrian]

A $1000 rifle is good enough for playing dress up and getting shot.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[TsuruchiBrian]

Only Russians and Muslims use AK-47s. This is a fashion show afterall.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

"For that matter, a $3000 dollar AR is no more lethal or accurate than an $800 dollar AR at the ranges that the vast majority of their owners are ever likely to shoot in either a self defense or hunting use."

Or a $500 AK given a couple hours of love to smooth the action and clean it up. But a $3000 AR is one with a gas system conversion that makes it MUCH more reliable than the $800 AR but not more reliable than the $500 AK. So if trying to arm hundreds of men on private funds, save the $300 vs the $800 AR and save the $2500 vs the $3000 AR and just buy the AK and run through a couple youtube videos worth of cleaning it up (take maybe 2-4hrs). Spend the rest on ammunition, which for real militia scale self defense is going to be a much more serious bottleneck.

As for the $3000 AR, that is pretending the AR is a sniper weapon and that puny round is not a sniper weapon. You'd be better off putting high quality optics on a .308 bolt action rifle or if you can find one a good quality nagant (you've got about 5 shots before barrel expansion becomes a problem but arguably if a sniper has shot more than 5 rounds it's time to move on especially in the kind of fighting against a superior force a militia is likely to be engaged in). A 50 cal is even better but the ammo is much much much more expensive and you probably don't have anyone in your group who is a good enough sniper that the round is needed.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

https://smntks.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/225031_tumblr_n4vbfpzm6s1s5kgq3o1_1280.jpg

Close: M&P15T , $1700 , Magpul handguard & stock $500, EOTech $600.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

Don't knock the 65 year old. That is the point of guns, suddenly grandma is just as deadly as her grandson.

As for these idiots putting optics on AR and AK type rifles. I agree completely. If you are really trying to arm a group like that, drop the anti-commie heart strings and go with the most economically effective rifle in that class a cheap AK with a couple hours of love spent shining up the action and fixing the sights. You'll be able to drop a soda can every time out to 200 yards and a person pretty reliably beyond that if you are a good shot. It's the shooter not the equipment. An AR will compare favorably after a gas conversion to bring up the reliability but for the price of the conversion you could have armed a second militiaman with an AK or bought a couple thousand rounds of ammunition.Toss a slide-fire stock on there and you've got a perfectly legal weapon that basically amounts to having select fire with a far more controlled rapid firing than full auto (although you are probably better off buying the ammo instead).

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

If you are a good shot you can hit a soda can reliably at 150 yards with iron sights on either an AR or a cheap cleaned up AK. For ranges that actually justify the optics people are using you need a bolt action rifle with a larger round like a .308 hunting rifle at least.

Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

No, you'd be really stupid to waste a $2000 scope on an AR. Put it on a bolt action rifle chambered for a larger round. It would make more sense to put a $2000 scope on a quality .308 hunting rifle than an AR. An AR is a gun for use at ranges up to about 250 yards. I'm not saying you can't successfully misuse it for longer ranges I'm saying it isn't a contender among rifles better suited to those ranges. And really, with the kind of money you have to drop in to modify an AR to compare with an AK at those ranges you are better off getting the AK and using the money you didn't spend on the gas conversion to buy a case or two of the superior ammunition it fires.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Nidi62]

Don't knock the 65 year old. That is the point of guns, suddenly grandma is just as deadly as her grandson. As for these idiots putting optics on AR and AK type rifles. I agree completely. If you are really trying to arm a group like that, drop the anti-commie heart strings and go with the most economically effective rifle in that class a cheap AK with a couple hours of love spent shining up the action and fixing the sights. You'll be able to drop a soda can every time out to 200 yards and a person pretty reliably beyond that if you are a good shot. It's the shooter not the equipment. An AR will compare favorably after a gas conversion to bring up the reliability but for the price of the conversion you could have armed a second militiaman with an AK or bought a couple thousand rounds of ammunition.Toss a slide-fire stock on there and you've got a perfectly legal weapon that basically amounts to having select fire with a far more controlled rapid firing than full auto (although you are probably better off buying the ammo instead).

Eh, I've got a Bushmaster with the carbon fiber lower, so it's nice and light. Threw a foregrip on it and an $80 reflex sight w/ laser. The rifle was free for me (won it in a raffle), but the whole set up costs around $900 and works just as well as G.I. Joe Sixpack with his $3k tacticool rifle. If I ever have to use it beyond 25 yards I'm either at an outdoor range or things in America have gone the way of Syria.

Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I gotta imagine the guy that shows up to a militia meeting with an AK is not getting the warmest welcome. That said, hopefully they spend more time admiring their weapons and discussing peaceful progress.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[maeka]

Serious question:

I am interested in a $500 AK worth cleaning up. Can you point to one?

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[wolf12886]

This is going to sound stupid, but have you ever play airsoft? It's the closest thing I can think of to using a gunsight in a combat situation (aka down on the ground, peaking around shit, etc). The iron sights are almost useless at close range. Why? Its not because you can't line up a perfect shot with them, it's because it takes too long. With a good close-range optic, you look through the scope and bam, there are the crosshairs, the head placement is very forgiving. With iron sights on the other hand, you have to look through that TINY hole in the rear site, and you need your eye to be close to it if you actually want to see anything. The reflex sites are even better, I can keep both my eyes open and bring my gun up, and instantly get a green dot superimposed on my vision. It's so fast you can do it at 10 yards or closer (like when you're watching a little hole the enemy might peak out of).

Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles

[Type44Q]

Saiga .308 with a 20 or 23" barrel...

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[sumdumass]

They are. It's like a Harley Davidson. You spend X on buying it and twice that much customizing it so you can find it in a sea of parked bikes.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[shaitand]

Century Arms AK's do the trick and are inexpensive. Shop around, you can get one for $500-700. Give it a good cleaning as there will be metal shavings in there, check youtube for what to polish to make the mechanism more smooth if needed, a more modern tactical stock is preferred but not essential. There are pricey ones but the cheap ones get the job done as well. The youtube trail will show you all the things you CAN do to modify it, there are a couple cheap upgrade parts you'll encounter learning to disassemble and reassemble that make life easier on that front. Don't put a scope or dot sight or any of that crap on it. Mine came well sighted in right from the factory but the iron is adjustable if needed. The iron sights that come on the gun have an adjustment for the distance of the target if making long shots so you don't have to calculate the drop of the bullet. Maybe use a couple dabs of glow in dark paint on them.

My wife had never shot before, I went to a local range here in the city and they had a CA one that was completely beat to crap and never cleaned available as a rental. Said it was mostly shot by kids who though the AK's look cool with the curved clip. It was an indoor range so 50 yards was most you could do but I had no problem putting two test holes in the 2" red and then making a single quarter sized hole in the center of the red on the paper with the rest of the first clip at 50 yards using the iron. If you are missing your shots, it is far more likely you need to invest in upgrading the shooter than the gun. No shame in that, we can always learn from other shooters and practice our way to being better shots. Also, hitting the paper on a 6" round target at any range means a kill shot, not the center.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/component/virtuemart/shipping-rifles/i-o-inc-akm247c-7-62x39mm-wood-stock-rifle-detail.html?Itemid=0

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[Anonymous Coward]

I've put less than $300* into my $600 AR**, and other than maybe putting a nicer scope on it one of these days (or a slightly padded stock), I don't foresee any further upgrades. I've got a rifle that shoots better than I do (I can reliably tag a 1" bulls-eye at 25 yards, which is the longest range I've got easy access to), and hasn't had a hiccup in the ~200 rounds I've run through it so far. (Life has conspired to keep me from hitting the range as much as I'd like since I bought it.)

* new fore grip, sling, a scope & scope mount, a butt pad & QD socket for the standard M4-style stock, flashlight, bi-pod. (The scope and bi-pod were transplants from another rifle, but are included in the cost of accessories)
** I actually spent a bit more than that on the rifle because I got tired of waiting for the good gun shop in the area to get one in stock, and found a little side-business shop that had one. I could have saved $80 if I'd been a few days more patient. :( My loss.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[KGIII]

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the select-fire M16. In a prone position, and properly using your firearm, you should be able to qualify as at least a marksman at 500 yards. Competition uses these rifles - standard issue but I think they use hand-loaded rounds, to hit out to 600 yards. This is done without the use of optics. Optics can, in certain environments, slow the user down and that must also be taken into consideration.

That is not to say that you're wrong. It is just to state that I qualified above that level, at 500 yards, with the select fire version of this same firearm. It is also timed, you don't just get to sit there and wait for the wind to adjust.

Every single Marine, from accountant to cook, is first and foremost a rifleman. Even the lady Marines are rifleman. Each and every one of them qualifies, at 500 yards, at at least the marksman level. If they do not qualify, they are not Marines. This is not a basic entry point to joining the ranks as a Marine. It is THE entry point. Basic is tough, sure, but anyone can do that with a little bit of mental and physical discipline. However, every single Marine qualifies at 500 yards. Else they do not get to use the tile Marine.

The Army has a 300 yard qualification. The Navy has similar (though the Marines are a Department of the Navy). The Air Force gets to look at a rifle and be able to point out the business end. They practice with lawn darts. The 500 yard qualification, that's a long ways in case you're curious, is mandatory and there is no Marine who has not demonstrated their ability to do so. Regardless of your school (MOS), you will be a rifleman. Your gender is not important nor is your job. You will be a rifleman and demonstrate proficiency with your rifle. You do not get optics to make your qualifying shots.

How do you shoot a target that is 1500 feet away and looks smaller than the site itself? Lots of practice and knowing your rifle and maintaining your rifle.

If you're curious about what it is that all Marines have in common - that's it. Every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman. That means, as I said, that you can hit an object 500 yards away. In other words, this is standard practice. However, it is the tradition of the Corps that each and every Marine is trained as a rifleman. You might be vaguely familiar with it as the Rifleman's Creed. Every Marine is intimately familiar with this. You know it as something that begins with this:

"This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine."

It goes on. I could type it for you but you can just as easily Google it now that you're aware of the name. The difference between the rifle that I was issued and an AR-15 is that the selector switch (and internals) has four positions on an M16. Those positions are Safe, Single, Burst, and Automatic. Safe means that when you put your booger hook on the bang-bang switch nothing should happen. Do not rely on this. The safety is in between your ears. Keep your booger hook off bang-bang switch until you're ready to fire. Single means just that. When you squeeze (you do not pull) the trigger AND hold it, a single round is fired. Each successive round will require an additional pull of the trigger to make it go boom. Burst means that a single pull and holding of the trigger will discharge three rounds and only three rounds. If you want to make it boom three more times, pull it again. Automatic (also known as awesome) means you unleash holy hell when you pull and hold the trigger. Pressing and holding the bang-bang switch means that it keeps going bang until the magazine is empty.

(It is a magazine, not a clip. There are clips. The M16 does not use a clip, the cartridges are contained in a magazine. Those aren't bullets, in case you're curious. Bullets are the things that go in the direction the barrel is pointed when you pull the bang-bang switch. When they go bang, they spit out a casing. By work of pure magic, this cycles and the little genie inside slides a new cartridge into place - that enables

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[KGIII]

Yet USMC recruits qualify with the M16 at 500 yds with iron sights.

Well, that would have saved me some time and effort. I gotta learn to scroll down before typing out my novellas.

Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles

[KGIII]

The good thing is that, should things go the way of Syria, you'll have a reliable firearm. I own an absolutely retarded number of firearms - as in a whole slew of 'em, I could outfit this entire thread - probably multiple times. I'm an avid collector but, not by any means, an expert in all things firearm related.

However, the AK-style weapons are good options at fine prices. I have an actual classed (and lawfully owned) AK-47. Well, technically it is the Chinese M-22. It's a fine firearm. It's reliable, accurate enough for its purposes, and was (at one time) inexpensive. I have made zero modifications to it nor will I. Can I hit a target, from a prone position, out at 500 yards? Err... Probably not. I'd think an effective firing range would be 200 yards, standing. I might push it out to 300 in prone or kneeling positions. I could probably hit the target at 500 yards, just not reliably. It just doesn't have the tolerances for that.

So, I think you've won a fine rifle. I'm not that prejudiced. I'll buy two of each and let a friend use one. I even own not one, but two, Jennings. Oh, I don't fire them. They might only be a .22 LR but I'm more afraid of them falling apart in my hands and hurting me than I am of hurting anyone that they are vaguely pointed at. I have fired them. I put some sub-sonics through one of them once - still cycled fine most of the time. I've only fired the other one once - for a magazine's worth of "snake" shot. They're .22 LR that's got shot shells and really tiny shot in them. I was able to hit a soda can at about 20' so it was marginally better than I expected. The first one, I've fired that a few times, and you're lucky to hit a soda can at 20' with regular ammo. No amount of adjusting seemed to help matters any.

Sadly, I know a lady who swears by hers. I've never seen her fire it and I hope I never do. I've offered to GIVE her something better - I even offered a nice Ruger. Nope... She swears by her Jennings. It is a .25 or .32 (I don't remember which) and I hope her life never depends on it if the attacker is more than a few feet away.

At any rate, for what they are, the AK is a fine weapon and anyone who suggests otherwise is probably not qualified to opine on the subject. Note: I did not say the best or even the best for certain circumstances. They're reliable, fire an adequate round, accurate enough, and reasonably priced. They're not just a "fine for what they are." They're fine. I'd never scoff at one or mock someone for owning one. I'd use one to defend myself if I needed to. I'd even elect to use one over many other firearms.

Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles

[KGIII]

Meh, if you want to go all in, and don't live in California, you can actually buy a Barrett, chambered in .50, and then ensure you get great optics and learn to actually use it. (The key point is the end of that sentence but I suspect you know that.)

Now, it is absolutely insane to buy one UNLESS you've got a few dollars. I have a few dollars. ;-)

I've seen them at kinda reasonable prices on the used market. They're not at shows. You need to find someone who has a lot of money and bought one thinking that they were going to be a sniper. Three things seem to happen... They realize the price to shoot one makes them even more insane to own. They realize that they have no idea how to operate one and improper operation actually hurts. They realize that they're huge and you need to maintain them properly which is a hole lot like work when you've just gone out and put a box of rounds through it.

Oh, and plan on lots and lots of ammunition so that you can actually get to the point where you're accurate with one. And ensure you get the bipod... They are heavy and you don't just stand up and fire them. At least I haven't nor have I actually let anyone do so. They will hurt you. They will break your collarbone. They are every bit as awesome as you might imagine. We have a "machine gun shoot" where the profits go to vets with PTSD and vets shoot free. That's one of the ones that I bring with me and no - not everyone gets to fire it, even seated, prone, bipod, or whatnot. No, it's not funny to have your 110 lb girlfriend fire it and hurt herself. No, your 9 year old son is not going to "be a man" and fire it. It will hurt you - at either end.

Also, there's a time and a place for a .50. A pistol is probably not one of those times. I do not own, nor will I ever probably buy, a Desert Eagle. I suppose they look good in movies. I can not imagine a time and place where that actually makes a good choice for your weapon. I guess, if you have absolutely nothing else... Even then, you might just want to point it at them or hit them with it. I've a friend who bought one but he bought it knowing that it was stupid to do so. They are not even all that much fun to fire. They're too big for my hands to hold comfortably.

I should add, it does not help matters one bit that I have a friend of mine who retired to Maine before I did. He was a gunsmith and owned his own store. He still does some business but is not an open store and is nominally retired. He's been getting rid of his collection, for years now, to help fund his retirement. *sighs* I have picked up a LOT of stray firearms that needed a good home and someone to care for them. It really is ridiculous. I can honestly say that I own more firearms than I should. :/

I'll probably buy more.

Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "domestic terrorists" or "insurgents" or even "illegal combatants"
at least thats what you call non-army, armed, hostile groups everywhere else in the world.

America always had a terrorist problem, themselves.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the takeover of an abadoned building in the middle of nowhere was incomprehensibly stupid with zero likelihood of any useful outcome, but it doesn't look very much like terrorism.

Re:Militia ?

[Koreantoast]

Militia is a particularly unique form of domestic terrorism / unrest that regularly pops up in the United States. It's distinguished from terrorism because the tactics are a bit different - they almost never aim to directly create mass civilian casualties or property damage like your more typical terror group. However, they do encroach and illegally use Federally owned territory. The American Federal government tends to be very cautious with them because the last tit-for-tat escalation in the 1990s ended with the Federal government accidentally killing dozens of men, women and children in addition to most of the militia members (Waco, Ruby Ridge are the two most public examples) that eventually did lead to terrorism by a group of sympathizers - the Oklahoma City Federal bombing. Maybe the more apt term would be anti-government rebels, but as one person pointed out, the US tends to be sympathetic to the term rebels given our history, so critics of militia don't like using the term.

Re:Militia ?

[smooth wombat]

It's distinguished from terrorism because the tactics are a bit different - they almost never aim to directly create mass civilian casualties or property damage

This is what the FBI has to say about the definition of domestic terrorism which you will note does not include the need for casualties:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. Â 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

1. Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
2. Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including  930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and  1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

Link for reference

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

So the takeover of an abadoned building in the middle of nowhere

Not really abandoned. Most likely it was just shut down for the season. The refuge contains a large breeding area for birds and is a major migration stop, with over 320 different species of birds. So it's busiest seasons are most likely spring, summer, and fall. At most they might see a few hikers in winter, so there's really no need to fully staff the park then.

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes. Some definitions of terrorism (important clauses bolded):

UN General Assembly: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I'd say the bill fits, they need to wear it.

Re: Militia ?

[LynnwoodRooster]

And the violence committed was?

Re: Militia ?

[bobbied]

Perhaps, but I don't see where their actions provoked a state of terror in the public or was violence perpetrated against a noncombatant or bystander. At most this is trespassing, breaking and entering, refusing a lawful order and resisting arrest with a possible "while using a firearm" enhancer..

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

And the violence committed was?

A group of people standing in your office protesting is a sit in. A group of people standing in your office protesting with guns is an occupation and a hostage situation. By entering the facility with weapons they made the implicit threat (and following statements such as Bundy's and Finicum's made it explicit) that you are willing to use those weapons. That's the violence.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Perhaps, but I don't see where their actions provoked a state of terror in the public or was violence perpetrated against a noncombatant or bystander. At most this is trespassing, breaking and entering, refusing a lawful order and resisting arrest with a possible "while using a firearm" enhancer..

Their actions were intended to force a particular response,was carried out in a violent way, and had a political purpose. And it was perpetrated against you. Your tax dollars help fund the wildlife refuge and their actions prevented people from the ability to use the facility and caused damage to the facility (removal of fences, cameras, etc).

Re:Militia ?

[MountainLogic]

Koreantoast, Militia was the first word so it was properly capitalized, but these are really lower case militia. Perhaps, even better labeled as wannabe war lords.
Far too many of us have forgotten the intent and history of the term militia in the constitution. The intent of the 2nd amendment and Militia was driven by peoples fear of a weak federal government that could not protect them from insurrections because of the scare from Shay's rebellion. In the case of Shay's the post revolution federal continental government refused to open the federal armories so that the sate Militias could respond to an upstate New England insurrection. The armories were filled with weapons from the revolution that were paid for by the "national" government, but often ended up in the hands of the local units at the close of hostilities so not having access to what the local's saw as their arms was a sore point. At any rate, the anemic response of the national government tightened many such as Hamilton and Madison and was one of the motivators of the constitutional convention. You can see the car intent of the writers of the second amendment and militia clause in the Federalist Papers, especially #29. Hamilton does go on a fair bit on the importance of federal control of the Militia, that it be well regulated and by well regulated he means well trained and under tight federal control to prevent war between the states. Chaos from a weak central government was a big concern in the nascent US - the thought of federal tyranny would have seemed laughable at the time. There has been massive revisionist history of the early republic to fit modern agendas.
If you want to see the first application of the Militia and 2nd amendment read about the Whiskey Rebellion. When some local hot heads ruffed up a federal official and take over his office, George Washington federalized 13,000 members of the state militia and using the leverage of the 2nd amendment forced the states to open their armories to equip the force. Washington lead the force, the only President to lead an army into battle, and rounded up the remaining 20 hot heads where were too dumb to go home when he arrived. By the way, even though Washington praised the militia publicly, he complained bitterly in private letters to members of congress that they were useless and undisciplined rabble.
Interestingly for recent event, Article IV, Section 4 speaks to the fact that the federal government had no choice, but to act as: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." And the Oregon Governor did call for federal action.
So, take home lesson:
US Militia == federally run arm of internal repression,
2nd amendment == state's rights to store arms for the feds under the rules the feds make.
Federal government must suppression rebellion.

Re: Militia ?

[tnk1]

Actually, no, this isn't terrorism. They're not holding anyone hostage or actually trying to "terrify" anyone. Terrorists set out to kill people, usually people who are unarmed and unable to retaliate who are behind the "lines" of a conflict in order to inspire terror.

When AQ blew up the WTC, they were terrorists. When ISIS beheads non-combatants and aid workers, they are terrorists. When people walk into stadiums and open fire to create terror, they are terrorists.

These guys are armed tresspassers trying to make a point. There's laws for that. We don't call criminals who kill a cop who was killed while they were in the commission of a robbery "terrorists". We call them murderers and cop killers. But they're not terrorists, or that term has lost all useful meaning.

Re: Militia ?

[tnk1]

Who are the hostages in this situation?

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Who are the hostages in this situation?

Metaphor much? The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.

Re:Militia ?

[wyHunter]

This: Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and says that any protest, no matter how peaceful, any march carrying posters, etc. is domestic terrorism.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

"All I did was point a gun at the shopkeepers head and say that I would murder him in front of his family if he didn't give me all the money in the register. I didn't commit any violence. I was just exercising my right to freedom of speech."

Re: Militia ?

[bobbied]

Ok, add vandalism and destruction of public property in excess of $1,000 to that list of charges...

Still NOT termism in that they are not threatening to harm bystanders, have done no violence to the general public or put anybody but themselves and law enforcement in possible harms way.

Come on, they are literally in the middle of nowhere occupying a government owned facility that was unoccupied when they arrived. They are miles away from the general public and pose no threat to anybody but law enforcement. They are not threatening to leave, only to stay.

Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself.. Now if they took an occupied federal building in a busy downtown area, shot a few people who passed by "just because" and where making threats to do harm to the general public, you'd have a great case. However, out in the middle of nowhere, occupying an unoccupied building and refusing to leave is not so clear cut.

Re: Militia ?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Got it. So an empty, closed up building where folks bearing firearms is a hostage situation.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

It already lost it's meaning when it was used for people who kill innocent civilians for ideological reasons.

There are many ways to terrify people that don't involve killing civilians nor ideological goals.

It's like when we shortened "automobiles" (i.e. things that move by themselves) to "autos" (selfs), their label really stopped making sense.

I don't think the word terrorist ever made sense from a linguistic perspective. And the definition has been changing to suit whoever is using it for as long as I can remember.

The new word for a "terrorist" should wither have a name that suggests it's meaning (i.e. someone that is willing to intentionally kill innocent civilians for ideological reasons), or it should just be a new word that doesn't come with any semantic baggage.

As controversial as the term "enemy combatant" was, it was very descriptive. It's an enemy that is fighting against you, that doesn't include the implications of a "soldier".

Re: Militia ?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Who was in the building at the time of occupation? Last I heard, it was boarded up/closed for the winter. Did anyone actually have a firearm pointed at them?

Re:Militia ?

[shaitand]

Considering the right to arm and form a civilian militia is an explicitly defined Constitutional right, they are not terrorists, insurgents, and legalized by the highest law of the land falls well short of illegal combatants.

The US army on the other hand, those are illegal combatants outside of time of a Congressional declaration of war.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself..

They committed a violent action (and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action) with a political purpose to coerce the government to free prisoners. That's pretty much the definition of terrorism.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

My point was that the threat of violence *is* violence. This group of people threatened to use violence against law enforcement. And furthermore the leadership of this group were recently apprehended after a gun fight with law enforcement.

Violence is not just the physical harm that results from a violent action.

Re: Militia ?

[tnk1]

It's a bad metaphor, which is why I called it out. Terrorists would have hostages, yes, but these people have none.

Every political crime, even if it is with a gun, isn't terrorism. I don't really think anyone feels particularly terrorized by their actions.

Re: Militia ?

[cat_jesus]

What do you call the guys down in Nevada during the Cliven Bundy situation who had federal agents in their sites?

Re:Militia ?

[Koreantoast]

They haven't crossed the (iii) line yet though for domestic terrorism nor the 930(c) for the Federal lands. I think that will probably change now that we have siege in place, but at this point, this isn't really that much different from a large number of people storming a government building and occupying and fortifying it in protest. There are no hostages, no direct threats to kill Federal officers or employees - the nuance they've made is they think the government will kill them. Until the arrests ans siege, this is less terrorism than some of the labor protests we've had in the last century where workers captured factories and attacked people with homemade weapons who tried to approach the building.

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.

Really? Against whom were they violent, and in what way did they use force? Please be specific. Is a cop being violent and forceful (by virtue of carrying a firearm) when standing next to you in line at a coffee shop? Am I being violent and forceful if I have a duck gun in my truck when we're both in the same parking lot? How about if I'm the only one in the parking lot (or in an empty building)? Please point out where they used violence, and who they forced to do what. Specifically.

Re:Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Considering the right to arm and form a civilian militia is an explicitly defined Constitutional right, they are not terrorists, insurgents, and legalized by the highest law of the land falls well short of illegal combatants.

Except they have now borne arms against the United States government by forcibly occupying federal property. So at best they are insurrectionists. In any case, while civilian militias could be argued to be allowed by the 2nd Amendment (not sure if it has ever been tested), by tradition they could only be called out by government officials (local, state, or federal). So the militia itself could be legal but they could still be operating illegally.

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

Violence is not just the physical harm that results from a violent action.

Right. It might also include destruction of property, etc. Not actually conducting yourself violently means you're not violent.

Violence: noun 1. swift and intense force:
the violence of a storm.

2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:
to die by violence.

3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:
to take over a government by violence.

So, sitting around with legally owned and carried firearms is violent, as far as you're concerned? Do you carry a multi-tool or a pocket knife (with which you could, at any moment, cut someone's throat)? For that matter, have you ever sat in a restaurant SURROUNDED by people with steak knives? That must have been terrifying for you.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.

Really? Against whom were they violent, and in what way did they use force? Please be specific. Is a cop being violent and forceful (by virtue of carrying a firearm) when standing next to you in line at a coffee shop? Am I being violent and forceful if I have a duck gun in my truck when we're both in the same parking lot? How about if I'm the only one in the parking lot (or in an empty building)? Please point out where they used violence, and who they forced to do what. Specifically.

They broke into a closed government facility with firearms and have openly stated their willingness to use them. The legal definition of violence is "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force." One definition of force is "coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence." The exhibition of force was possessing and openly displaying their firearms.

Re: Militia ?

[shaitand]

"Most likely it was just shut down for the season."

Abandoned for the season at least. The point being they chose a target where there was a minimal chance of hurting someone. Whether you agree with their actions or not, they went about those actions in a manner which deliberately intended to minimize any damage or harm. Accidents happen but carrying a rifle while conducting a protest does not mean it isn't a peaceful protest, affirming that you will defend yourself if parties attempt to use violence to interfere is self-defense and also does not fail the peaceful protest category.

"calculated to provoke a state of terror"

There is no evidence this was intended. The deliberate choice an empty institution far away from civilian populations and the failure to initiate violence or make a threat that they will initiate violence (as opposed to declaring they will defend themselves if hostile actions are initiated by others) is a strong indication they did not attempt to invoke a state of terror.

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence"

You are missing the violence part. Standing around with guns is not an act of violence. Standing around on property seized via imminent domain in protest of that seizure is not violence. Asserting that if others attempt violence (and yes, kidnapping by armed men is violence whether they have badges or not) you will defend yourselves is not violence.

There is a difference between being prepared to fight for a cause if necessary and throwing the first punch. In all other cases the police arrest the man who threw the first punch at the offender and consider the other party the defender no matter what was said leading up to the fight. These men did not throw the first punch and never gave any indication they intending on throwing a first punch or would be willing to, only that they wouldn't allow themselves to be pummeled if another party punched them.

Just because you don't agree with their motivations or actions is no reason to malign their actions beyond reality. Whatever else these men did, they did exhibit a premeditated and deliberate caution and respect for the lives and safety of others when carrying out those actions.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Every political crime, even if it is with a gun, isn't terrorism. I don't really think anyone feels particularly terrorized by their actions.

It is terrorism because it is intended to coerce the government to undertake a certain action and is driven by an (in this case political) ideology.

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

They committed a violent action (and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)

So every one of those Occupy sit-ins was also a violent takeover? Those people were armed with kitchen equipment, camp stoves, pointy pencils, and even possibly lethal bare fists. The FBI reminds us that more people are beaten to death every year than are killed with any kind of rifle or shotgun. So pretty much anybody who holds one of those marches or protests while carrying signs attached to 4-foot wooden sticks ... definitely violent acts, right? No? Why not? Be very specific.

Re:Militia ?

[shaitand]

The formation of militias is an explicitly defined Constitutionally protected right. They are not terrorist organizations by definition but rather a constitutionally created military force. It is the assembly of such militias in the time of war that is supposed to be the body of the US army, there actually isn't supposed to be a federal army outside of a congressional declaration of war.

"the Federal government accidentally killing dozens of men, women and children in addition to most of the militia members (Waco"

More than enough information has come out regarding Waco and was captured on film to definitively prove that saying the government accidentally killed those men, women, and children (including the militia who engaged in no hostile actions) is akin to claiming that soaking a beaver dam in gasoline and setting it on fire accidentally resulted in killing the beavers.

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

Who were they intimidating, being the only people there? Who were they compelling to do what?

Is this similar to the Occupy people intimidating store owners by blocking their doors and chanting, and compelling people to find other ways to try to get their jobs or other routes for ambulances carrying dying people to the hospital?

Re:Militia ?

[shaitand]

They peacefully occupied an abandoned compound built on lands that had been previously illegally seized by the federal government. They stated a willingness to defend themselves if attacked.

Those actions do not meet either of the definitions above. Further, the right to form a militia is protected by the 2nd amendment which is higher law and preempts both US statute and the FBI mandate and authority. Arguably, the right to form such a militia includes an implicit reservation of peoples right to act via their militia. Federal seizure of lands violates provisions of the Constitution which only permit federal forces to occupy private property to a limited extent under a congressional declaration of war. Violation of the Constitution is an act of high treason and an attempt to stop an ongoing violation against the people would fall within the right to domestic military action that the people reserved.

The people reserved domestic military power to the people so that it could be used should the supreme court blatantly ignore the Constitution (a legal document that was not written by lawyers and is intended to be readable by the common man) and the federal government fail to respect the limits on the power we choose to give them. This is a power reserved by the people to correct large breaches and attempts to seize authority from the people whereas the jury was our reservation of power to prevent the enforcement of unjust laws one case at a time.

Re: Militia ?

[bobbied]

Yes, they have committed multiple felonies, but I don't see being terrorists in that list myself..

(and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)

I never knew that bringing my firearm into my house was a violent action and made me a terrorist. Man I've even contacted my congressman vie E-mail while armed (my loaded handgun in it's holster) sitting on my couch... OK, OK... You've proven to be a leftist wing-nut now, unless you care to walk back what you just said and perhaps refine what you really mean.

Be careful, because if you live by the sward, you are going to die by it too. Carefully consider things like the Occupy protests and unpermitted protest marches or even riots because the line you draw for one thing has to legally apply to all things equally or you are really just objecting to the politics of the issue and are not interested in the legalities. (Which, by the way, is a common problem for some of us who choose to react based on emotion, which is a personality trait more common on the left end of the political spectrum than the right, and something I find dreadfully annoying.)

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So, sitting around with legally owned and carried firearms is violent, as far as you're concerned?

No, it's the part about threatening to use it on people.

Do you carry a multi-tool or a pocket knife (with which you could, at any moment, cut someone's throat)?

Yes, I do, and I have never threatened to use it to harm anybody.

For that matter, have you ever sat in a restaurant SURROUNDED by people with steak knives? That must have been terrifying for you.

I have yet to experience anybody in a restaurant proclaiming that they will use their knife to kill me if they have to. If anybody did make such a proclamation, I think calling the cops would be appropriate.

So it seems as though the part you are missing is the *threat* part I mentioned.

Re: Militia ?

[110010001000]

Actually this is very similar to the Occupy people. Glad you mentioned it. Radicals and idiots.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep on sliding. When you get arrested as a terrorist for farting in line at the DMV, you'll get no sympathy from me.

Using your argument, I may legally consider PACs as terrorists. They certainly try their best to coerce the government to get whatever they want based on whatever ideology is willing to pay the most. Right?

Re: Militia ?

[LynnwoodRooster]

My point was that the threat of violence *is* violence.

Umm, no. They are legally different things - they are NOT the same by statute and law. Assault is threatening violence. Assault AND battery is threatening AND achieving the violent action. Confounding the two is disingenuous at best.

Re:Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

>peacefully

False. Stated threats of violence are never "peaceful." See: They stated a willingness to defend themselves if attacked. That makes it non-peaceful. In a peaceful sit-in, the participants offer no resistance to being arrested. The goal is to have so many people they literally cannot fit you all in jail. It's a DOS against the police.

>abandoned compound

False. It was not abandoned anymore than my house is abandoned while I'm at work.

>Further, the right to form a militia is protected by the 2nd amendment which is higher law and preempts both US statute and the FBI mandate and authorit

False. It protects the right to bear arms. It's the 1st that protects your right to assemble.

> Arguably, the right to form such a militia includes an implicit reservation of peoples right to act via their militia.

False. The right to do X does not and never confers the right to break the law with X.

>Federal seizure of lands violates provisions of the Constitution

False. This doesn't actually exist anywhere.

>Violation of the Constitution is an act of high treason

False.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

>an attempt to stop an ongoing violation against the people would fall within the right to domestic military action that the people reserved.

False. 1) There is no right of domestic military action. None. You're a moron. 2) You don't actually have the right to commit a crime to stop another one. Especially one that isn't a crime.

>The people reserved domestic military power to the people so that it could be used should the supreme court blatantly ignore the Constitution

Wow. That's some gold fringe level idiocy there,

Re: Militia ?

[110010001000]

No you are right. The violent Occupy takeovers were very similar to these "patriot" nutters. Except the gun nutters took it up a notch with firearms. Let me guess: you hate the "liberals", oh and "those people" in Ferguson. Why don't you just come out and admit you are a gun nut and a "patriot"?

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

I never knew that bringing my firearm into my house was a violent action and made me a terrorist. Man I've even contacted my congressman vie E-mail while armed (my loaded handgun in it's holster) sitting on my couch... OK, OK... You've proven to be a leftist wing-nut now, unless you care to walk back what you just said and perhaps refine what you really mean.

Be careful, because if you live by the sward, you are going to die by it too. Carefully consider things like the Occupy protests and unpermitted protest marches or even riots because the line you draw for one thing has to legally apply to all things equally or you are really just objecting to the politics of the issue and are not interested in the legalities. (Which, by the way, is a common problem for some of us who choose to react based on emotion, which is a personality trait more common on the left end of the political spectrum than the right, and something I find dreadfully annoying.)

So because I don't support a radical right-wing militia I'm a leftist? So I guess that means I don't really own my 2 shotguns, 4 handguns, and 3 rifles then, either? Not many "leftists" tend to go to school at southern, rural, Baptist-affiliated universities either, but I guess I did. I would also think my sig would kind of be the antithesis of "leftist" philosophy, but I guess I was wrong there too. Thanks for telling me my political affiliation for me. Here's a tip: don't ever assume you know someone's politics, because you don't know anything about them.

Occupy was perfectly peaceful, as were the Black Lives Matter idiots (I still think they should all have been broken up and arrested, but that's a different story). Openly bearing firearms is announcing a willingness to use them (unless you just like using them as a fashion symbol or accessory, in which case you probably shouldn't own a gun anyway). Violence isn't just the application of force, it is the threat of using that force. And again: by forcibly occupying federal property they have committed a terrorist act at best, at worst an act of treason and war.

Re: Militia ?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

While we both likely agree that these occupiers are asshats and idiots, we must not allow that to break our common language.

While both are reprehensible, perhaps even equally so, the fact remains that violence is not the same thing as a credible threat of violence.

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

Actually this is very similar to the Occupy people. Glad you mentioned it. Radicals and idiots.

The difference, of course, is that the Occupy idiots were deliberately looking to make other people's lives miserable, as opposed to these guys, who were sitting alone in the middle of nowhere - not yelling people's faces, not disturbing the peace with drumming and chanting, not threatening businesses, not blocking emergency workers, etc.

Re: Militia ?

[Copid]

I don't think anybody was committing violence. They were just threatening it if people tried to enforce the law. If I was on your property and you called the police to have me removed, I don't think you could call me a peaceful protester if I made it clear that I was willing to exchange gunfire with any law enforcement office who came to remove me. That designation is reserved for people who allow themselves to be arrested without physical incident.

Re:Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder where "sedition" fits into the above...

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So to you pointing a gun at someone's head is not violent?

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

They are not the same thing. One is a sub-category of the other. Threat of violence is violence, but violence is not a threat of violence.

Re: Militia ?

[tnk1]

Criminals resisting arrest.

People who simply resist arrest aren't terrorists. They're just well armed criminals.

They may well have a politically motivated goal, but their activities aren't to attack random people with those weapons as part of their activity, they are directly opposing the government force that would remove them from the location in which they are maintaining their protest.

I want to be clear. I don't support these people. They're wrong, they need to put their damn weapons away, and they need to go to jail. But what they are not doing is holding hostages, or using atrocities against innocent and unsuspecting people to make their point. They're having an armed sit-in. The cops have a right to remove them, and a right to use deadly force on them because they are armed and resisting. But they aren't terrorists.

There have been domestic terrorists in the US. The Oklahoma City bombing, the abortion clinic killings, the mental midget who shot up that church in SC. They were using violence to make their political point and they aimed to do so. Those are terrorists. These people are just criminal trespassers who are merely using trespassing as their means to make a political point. The fact that they are armed is important, but it doesn't make them terrorists.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dhs.gov/faq-regardi...

"For example, it is illegal to attempt to enter a Federal facility with weapons, explosives, incendiary devices, and illicit drugs, even if it is legal to possess a firearm or drugs in a state or city."

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are a shit ton of birds there now. I just hit some a NWR south of there and there were flocks of ducks and geese in the 10's of thousands. Though that flyway is flyway will be more full of birds on their way back up.

Re: Militia ?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

When I ask google, it tells me:

violence, n., behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

In light of this fact, I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Re: Militia ?

[crow_t_robot]

Do they brandish guns to do this?

Re: Militia ?

[crow_t_robot]

Do you think you can go to the DMV after hours with a rifle and hold the building to yourself waiting for the employees to arrive in the morning intending to keep them out by force without getting shot in the face? Please attempt this. Today.

Re: Militia ?

[crow_t_robot]

Look at you trying so hard to be Bill Clinton. So cute with your stupid word games. A multi tool is intended as a tool. A steak knife is intended as an implement to cut steak. A gun is intended to take maim and/or take lives. This is why you are a republican; because you are real stupid.

Re:Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they can't just label it "being an asshole" instead of "terrorist".

Re:Militia ?

[MountainLogic]

The militias defined in the constitution are controlled by the federal government. There is no right to self organize an army or rebel anywhere in the constitution. In article 1 section 8 th power of congress include:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
and in Article 2 section 2 the powers of the President include:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Read the the document folks before professing what you've been miss told what it says. The militias were added in the constitution to help repel invasions and to put down insurrections. Somehow, I just don't see these clowns taking orders from their Governor or our President.

Re: Militia ?

[bobbied]

Way to miss the point... At issue is the definition of "terrorist" and what you have offered doesn't seem to be evenly applied here.

The Occupy stuff was NOT (for the most part) terrorist related, it was civil disobedience. It was illegal and they actually occupied government spaces and buildings and refused to leave until their grievances where addressed. They even damaged property in some cases. There have been other examples of civil disobedience in the past, riots even, which apart from being armed, looked almost exactly like what's happening now.

Adding firearms into the mix is what I'm guessing your issue here is. That somehow, having firearms and calling yourself a militia when occupying government property makes the crime about terrorism and not just civil disobedience. However, I don't see that being armed while protesting is actually enough to cross into being terrorists, especially given that they are in a remote and isolated area and didn't have to engage in an armed assault to take the building they are now refusing to leave. Being armed obviously makes the crimes more serious, but to declare them terrorists implies that there is intent to terrorize, make the public afraid by implication or overt actions. I don't see that kind of intent, and being armed isn't enough evidence to prove such intent.

But that's where we happen to be at this point... If they start threatening to leave their little remote campsite to do violent acts to others, or actually DO such actions, THEN we can call them terrorists, of the domestic kind.. Right now, they are just armed idiots who think anybody cares enough about some remote park building that they can actually cause the authorities to release some folks .

Re: Militia ?

[ScentCone]

A gun is intended to take maim and/or take lives

Says who? I own many of them. Some are intended solely to break orange clay pigeons. Some exquisitely built just for very specific types of competitive target shooting (you know, not unlike archery, for example). Those that are more like typical weapons are - in my case - intended specifically to PREVENT maiming and taking of lives.

That razor sharp knife in that Leatherman multi-tool? It's only purpose is to cut through things. To render things apart - to drestroy things. Obviously the only reason someone might own or carry such a potentially lethal object is in order to destroy, right? No? Is it possible that both that very sharp, destructive knife and any other weapon are just inert pieces of metal, and they only become worrisome as offensive weapons when someone uses them as such? You know, just like a baseball bat? A baseball bat in intended to deliver a concentrated blow of enormous power to the object at which it is swung. But in your world, it's not a weapon or a worry, no matter who is using it or why, because it's not an evil gun.

This is why you are a republican; because you are real stupid.

Your personal need for childish ad hominem is a great example of why you're a liberal: because that camp relies on low-information appeals to emotion as a basis for policy. For example, you assume I'm a republican, despite my never having said so (I'm not). Your lazy bit of craven intellectual cowardice is certainly in keeping with your liberal fellows. Thanks for being so predictable.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you read the whole entry for your own google citation you will see the following:

the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Re: Militia ?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

that's the legal definition, sure. but, i'm only familiar with english, and not law. if we're going with the legal definition, we'll also need legal definitions for 'exhibition' and 'physical force'.

in any case, it wasn't evident from the original context that you were speaking in legal terms, not ordinary english ones. my apologies.

Re: Militia ?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, that is the threat of violence - it is not violence itself. Most people can understand the difference. And in this case - pointing guns at NO ONE is neither the threat OR execution of violence.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

UN definition: So you were terrified, then, of some random group of yokels circle-jerking in an empty building in the ass end of a state you probably couldn't find on a map?

Or was it the second definition? Because there wasn't any actual violence by either side until the arrest and, in any case, there don't appear to have been any noncombatants involved.

Criminal? Yes. Terrorism? Not even close and stretching the definition as you do so that it encompasses your out group is a dangerous precedent to set.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's just make your position explicit: you worship the state and you object strongly to anyone protesting that state having any effective means to resist the use of force by said state in suppressing dissent.

Do us all a favor and don't contribute to the gene pool.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"those people" in Ferguson...

You mean like the one that reached into a police car and tried to take a gun from a police officer...that kind of people? Because you understand that's actually what happened, right? There was no hands up don't shoot. There was no shot in the back running away from the officer. A dumb shit thug who'd literally just finished robbing a store thought it would be a good idea to try to take a gun away from a cop in his patrol car and died for it.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Re:Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to cross the (iii) line. They've already crossed (i) and (ii). The definition is written as:
Do x that appears intended to (i) and (ii or iii).

They have:
a) taken acts that violate federal *and* state law
b) intimidated the local civilian population (repeatedly following certain people *home* while carrying their rifles)
c1) in order to influence the policy of the federal government by intimidation (we've got guns, give is this land, and if you try to boot us off, we'll shoot)
c2) and the local government by coercion (support us and we'll stop harassing your citizens by following them home with guns)

The only part that is questionable is whether their acts can be considered 'dangerous to human life', but given that they were claiming they could:
a) set up a 'shadow government' in order to
b) put local government officials up on charges in front of a grand jury, and then
c) arrest them;
it's a bit of a stretch to claim otherwise.

Hint: 'arresting' someone without lawful authority to do so is called *kidnapping*, which is considered to be sufficient for use of lethal force in defense against, so I'd count kidnapping as a violent act, and most of the time, conspiracy to commit an act is legally considered the same sort of crime as actually committing that act. That means they have openly *threatened* to commit a violent act against the local government.

It looks like they've hit all the necessary parts of that first 'domestic terrorism' definition. As of the traffic stop, they've *definitely* upgraded their actions to the point where they have, as a group, met the federal statutory definition, as well.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because assault rifles are weapons while pointy pencils, kitchen equipment, and bare fists are not.
A weapon is defined by its intended use by the user. If you have a baseball bat in your house because you play baseball, it is not a weapon. If you drive nails through it, it's a weapon. A bread knife is not a weapon. A steak knife is not a weapon. A steak knife hidden in your shoe so you can sneak it into a courtroom is a weapon.
An assault rifle is one of the relatively few things that is always considered a weapon. There is no normal non-lethal intent for it. You're allowed to own and use weapons, but if you use them maliciously you transform an otherwise innocent act (such as a protest) into a violent action.

Re: Militia ?

[Lakitu]

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes.

No, it's not. You're a fucking moron for thinking so.

Terrorism involves killing people. Specifically, it involves killing *random* people. Occupying a building is not terrorism, it is civil disobedience. Unless they were planning on renaming the place the Alamo and fighting until the very last man, there is no conceivable way you can believe this to actually be terrorism, and advocating for it to be called that is a disgusting injustice where you are literally calling for the state to murder your fellow citizens. Considering they were arrested peaceably, this doesn't seem to have been the case.

It's even more astonishing that you would quote the UN (???????) with a definition which plainly does not fit what they were doing and definitions for a law regarding the

Requirement of annual country reports on terrorism

. How is that even relevant? You don't know the law, you don't know what words mean, and you don't seem to have a sensible grasp on what justice is or should be. What exactly do you know?

Here is a more relevant definition of terrorism (which also plainly does not fit): https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/i...

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

Anyone who thinks these people are TERRORISTS needs to have their brain adjusted. Mexican cartels murdering judges or leaving decapitated bodies laying around is a good example of violent coercion and intimidation and could only arguably be considered terrorist organizations. These people certainly have not been. The kind of fucking retard logic displayed here could categorize black sit-ins in the 1960s as being terrorist actions. It's insanity.

Re:Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the beavers built the dam, poured the gasoline and set it alight all by themselves. The Feds just watched.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's not just the legal definition. In our society we commonly refer to acts of intimidation as violence even if no one is physically harmed. Most people would consider having a gun pointed at them as an act of violence, even if the only damage was psychological.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not in favour of violence, but they are far from a violent group (crazy right wing nut jobs with guns for sure... but there is no evidence violence on the part of the protesters here). So sorry your just wrong.

By your definition a protest is a terrorism. A protest is aimed at change and certainly many if not most people feel threatened by change- particularly when it comes from a minority group. A protest isn't terrorism though- not even when the protests possess weapons. You'd actually have to pull those weapons and start shooting at civilians (cause police are combatants they don't count- and nor would any government, land, or facility, targeting such things is rebellion, not terrorism). Having a gun and protesting isn't terrorism though nor is breaking into a building. At best some people may have been threatening to defend themselves against *other* combatants should they be targeted with violence . They never did commit violence though against any police officer or non-combatant and despite that police officers have already murdered one of the protesters.

Utilizing violence should be a last resort by all parties, but the government isn't restraining itself, and the people should consider all options to restore the rights of the people. However doing it in the way which has been done here was never going to work. You need to bring a significant group of people together whom are likely candidates to take up protests/arms/and so on against government first. You have to have intelligence, training, a plan, and probably most importantly a source of funding. It may not even be essential that you have arms at all. Merely sufficient numbers, organization, and activists willing to make it impossible for the government to act. They can take out *some percentage of the population*. But it'll be much more difficult to take out a larger percentage of the population. Concentrated in an area your going to run into serious problems.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was "only" break and enter, with the promise backed up by guns that they'd die shooting if someone tried to force them to leave.

A threat is a threat, especially when you've got firearms ready.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you don't want to consider pointing a gun at someone's head violence, then that's fine. That's a semantic debate that I don't want to get into. But when you say "I don't think the group that took over the wildlife refuge is violent", then you should also provide a disclaimer that you don't consider threats of violence (e.g. an armed bank robbery where no one is injured) to be violence, so people know what you are really talking about. As long as people know what your particular definition of violence it is, I don't think you will get any disagreement.

Yes, I agree by your definition, this group has not committed any violent acts yet. Some of them got in a shootout with the cops, but since none of the cops were injured (were actually hit with any bullets), they weren't being violent even in that incident either.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't fit shit dumbass.
Note the american 'law' defiens terror as a simple stupid crime of murder, or some vague influence. against anyone, including people paid to fight... military, cops. It's a catchall, and a crock of shit.
the UN and any other rational place correctly defines it using the mental state of the affected, particularly concerning the noncombatant 'public'.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

How many Occupy protesters threatened to use deadly force if law enforcement attempted to remove them?

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

If you google "violence" in google, it lists 3 definitions. Under the one labelled "law" it says: "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.".

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes. Some definitions of terrorism (important clauses bolded):

UN General Assembly: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I'd say the bill fits, they need to wear it.

Agreed, which is why they should not wear it... Their intent wasn't to cause terror, and their "target" was a building, not people.

Re: Militia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really fucking stupid

Re: Militia ?

[dywolf]

depends on your local and state laws

Ever see the ads on FB?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the right-wing prepper stuff on my FB feed, because there are a few interesting articles here and there. What the militia types bought were exactly what the goods were that were hawked via the ads. Baofeng radios? Yep, heavily hyped and talked about by prepper lists. AR-15s? Yep. Down to the fleshlight attachments.

It is good these guys were just following the herd. Had they geared up with encrypted radios, AK-47s (which are engineered to win wars, not defense contracts), and stuff that actually was usable, it would be a different story. But the tacti-cool ads paid off, and when the rubber met the road, the trained people who knew what they were doing won.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[jedidiah]

Lay off the A-Team reruns.

Describing an AK-47 as "engineered" is a complete misnomer. Whereas an AR-15 is designed to be accurate at 500 yards. This situation is further complicated by the fact that there's a wide variance in the quality and manufacture of AK-47s. Some are utter crap that aren't useful for anything. The best made AK's are actually not allowed to be imported to the US as rifles. So you end up with these odd "pistolized" AK-47s that look and feel like something out of a bad action movie.

Whereas a mediocre shot with a government issue American rifle can consistently split your hair at 200 yards.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Accuracy isn't everything. If a weapon gets dropped and the barrel is rendered unusable, then what good is it? This is why AK-based weapons have prevailed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and many other places, as they are designed for battle conditions, not punching paper. If I am wrong on this, please have some actual evidence. ARs are cool looking and you can stick everything including the kitchen sink... but AKs win wars.

Re: Ever see the ads on FB?

[Anonymous Coward]

An AR15 with a fleshlight attachment? I shouldn't be so surprised, some of the guys I saw on the news had a distinct aura of making love to their guns.

Re: Ever see the ads on FB?

[Type44Q]

The best made AK's are actually not allowed to be imported to the US as rifles.

That would the Vepr and the Saiga (made by Molot and Izhmash, respectively) and yes, they are.

Re: Ever see the ads on FB?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's taking the idea of Russian roulette to a whole new level...

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The AK really isn't that much more reliable than AR. The reason you find the AK all over the world is that they are dirt cheap, being 95% made of folded metal. You can make an AK for about 1/4 the price of an AR (with it's machined receiver) - and that makes it easier to sell to impoverished warlords/Governments. So you get a lot more of them on the market. But more reliable? They're actually on about par.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[Jawnn]

Whereas a mediocre shot with a government issue American rifle can consistently split your hair at 200 yards.

We must have different definitions of "mediocre". Most of those I'd paste with that label can't keep it on the paper at 200.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[tnk1]

The bad rep of the AR is based on the M-16's penchant for jamming in Vietnam before a redesign fixed those problems. If you didn't keep an M-16 clean, it would fail to operate properly. Whereas in the same period, you'd have demonstrations of AK-47's that get buried, dug up, brushed off, knock the dirt out of it a little, and it would still fire.

The AK is not a particularly accurate or easy to control weapon, but it was made to work with much looser tolerances. If something wasn't tight or there was a little dirt in the machinery, it would still fire. This is a big deal in places where you'd be dragging through the mud all day, like most Third World war zones. Add that to having easy to manufacture stamped receivers, and you have a reliable, easy to produce weapon for export.

Assault rifles were designed when they realized that even the carbine versions of long rifles like the K-98k missed the point because while they were accurate out to a pretty long distance, they were heavy and cumbersome to operate, while most fighting took place at a much shorter range. The ability to lay down suppressive fire, while at the same time, having a reasonable amount of accuracy out to 200-300 yards, was more than good enough.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[Coren22]

Not to mention there are no defence contracts involving the AR-15, perhaps the AC is confusing the M-16 and AR-15?

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[shaitand]

The cheapest of AK-47's can be polished up to stand next to the best in a couple hours after watching a few youtube videos. AR15's are more accurate to a longer range out of the box but an AK-47 is more than accurate enough to consistently kill people at 300 yards with iron sights.

Beyond 300 yards you can misuse an AR but there are definitely better rifles for someone looking to take down targets at this range and beyond, the AR doesn't really have a powerful enough round for it and semi-automatic mechanisms are less reliable than bolt action for this kind of shooting. What an AR fails to do is provide reliable operation in real conditions, at least not as designed. They can be retrofit with more reliable gas mechanisms to approach AK reliability but you could have armed a second soldier or bought ammunition for the first instead if you'd simply armed them with an AK.

Civilian armies typically have the same problem the soviets did, limited resources relative to the opposition, the AK is the obvious choice. There are really two reasons ARs are popular. The first is that former US military are inclined to use them due to familiarity, the gun is a demilitarized version of the M16 they used in service. Second is that hatred of "commies" was pushed so hard and with so much propaganda that people refuse to use what is a far more practical weapon because they have been programmed to hate the ideology of the people who designed it. It's about as silly as it would be to refuse to use normal sized hammers if the Russians had come up with them and insist on using tack hammers for every job because someone in the US came up with those first. I'll use the tack hammer where it is the best tool for the job, the normal hammer where appropriate, and a bolt action rifle with at least a .308 round for any task in which putting optics on my rifle doesn't make me ignorant or stupid.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[moeinvt]

Agree with your AR vs. AK points, but this is totally wrong:

"The cheapest of AK-47's can be polished up to stand next to the best in a couple hours"

I've seen, handled and fired Russian, Chinese, Romanian and Bulgarian models. No amount of polish could possibly make that Romanian POS stand up to the Russian model.

Re:Ever see the ads on FB?

[Anonymous Coward]

no sorry. they are not on par.
the AK really IS more reliable than the AR.

you can drop an AK in the mud, wipe it off, and fire it.
you can't do that with the M16.
I have personally done this.

you can also drive over it with a 5ton, and fire it.
I've done that too. (the steyr AUG reportedly can also survive this test, but I've not had the fortune to test it myself)

I've never had the misfortune of having to deal with the A1 model, but I've considerable experience with A2 and A4.
If you take care of it, it'll treat you right. It shoots straighter than the AK, and at a greater distance.
But it's a prickly princess, and it requires much more maintenance and care, which is why so much of your downtime is spent cleaning it.

-source: 13 years USMC

Prohibited

[PPH]

Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.

Re:Prohibited

[Noble713]

If you are already breaking the law, why let FCC regulations stop you?

If you are using frequency-hopping + encryption + proper radio protocols (short, bursty conversations), Big Brother will have a Hell of a time triangulating your position and decrypting your comms traffic.

Re:Prohibited

[bigmo]

While encryption is prohibited in amateur radio, I believe that some radios do have encryption available on them (mostly the chinese radios). Generally they can't get FCC approval for the radios that allow illegal behaviour, but they may be using a loophole because some of the radios are also used on the commercial bands which may (???) allow encryption.

Re:Prohibited

[DogDude]

And so is pointing guns at law enforcement. But hey, they're white!

Re:Prohibited

[peragrin]

They knew the position of the center that they were holding up in.

Now it is patrols that the postin and timing reports that is the big secret. As that is how you figure out how to sneak in.

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

Post links to proof that they're pointing their weapons at law enforcement.

Re:Prohibited

[bobbied]

LOL, you don't think the military has figured out this frequency hopping problem yet and Homeland Security/FBI et.al. hasn't purchased the necessary hardware?

Me thinks you are bit naïve...

However, you ARE correct that you can effectively obscure the meaning of your communications w/o having to resort to encrypted transmissions. They may not be cool, but techniques used in WW1 and 2 that used unencrypted channels are still tactically viable and not hard to implement.

Re:Prohibited

[evilviper]

WiFi can be encrypted, and just an AP and a free app on a few smart phones would give you encrypted radio comms, if you so desired.

Re:Prohibited

[tlhIngan]

Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.

Unlicensed use of licensed frequencies is also prohibited.

Those Baofeng radios are basically ham 2m/440cm radios, and most people just pick them up at the store without realizing that they require a license to operate. Because of their low cost, they're really available at any store, especially outdoor outfitters.

So, provided they were already breaking the law anyways, well...

Then again, because they were designed for amateur radio, they wouldn't have encryption anyways because no one allows encryption. So they'd have to design their own radios or use some other (more expensive) rigs operating on a different frequency.

Re: Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

So are many other aspects of this teabagger cosplay festival.

Re:Prohibited

[ScentCone]

And so is pointing guns at law enforcement. But hey, they're white!

And in several cases, in custody today or even dead. What's your point?

Re:Prohibited

[shaitand]

Because the FCC regulations stop the guys who manufacture radios. Frequency hopping is useless and radio encryption available to civilians is backdoored by the US government so hardly suitable for communicating if they are the ones you don't want listening.

The only way they would be able to get encrypted radios would be to make the encryption technology and the radios themselves and then somehow manage to miniaturize the technology enough to make efficient handhelds. Not likely.

Re:Prohibited

[DogDude]

These same terrorists pointed guns at federal officials in the whole Clive Bundy incident, and are still free (and alive) more than a year later. Non-white people would be dead or beaten or arrested in seconds. That's my point.

Re:Prohibited

[shaitand]

Actually the encryption comes from motorola and it is US govt backdoored so useless for this purpose. What I'd have probably done is produce my own audio encryption modules that could plug in the mic port and produce an ear piece but I doubt these guys had that kind of technical skill.

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant, exchange a cheap hard to track device for an expensive device that transmits continuously, is easy to hack and difficult to secure. You can't even be sure a smartphone isn't being used against you until you pull the battery. They're useful no doubt, but security wise they are about the worse thing you could choose.

Re:Prohibited

[ScentCone]

No, the feds very wisely didn't want a televised firefight between dozens of feds and dozens of civilians. Those same feds also resisted using lethal force when they and their local counterparts were violently actually assaulted by people with Black Lives Matter or Occupy [random] who rather than merely threatening to kill, actually tried to - with blows to the head from projectiles, firebombs, etc.

You're talking about the actions of a dozen or so people that you think are terrorists, but ignoring the violent actions of thousands across the country who were let of the hook because they weren't white. You've got it exactly backwards. Just ask the mayor of Baltimore, for example, who told law enforcement to tolerate violent assaults to their lives, and give the (black) residents "room to destroy" during their terrorist outburst.

Either be even handed in trotting out that word, or don't trot it out. And if you ARE going to, mention that you're talking about a tiny group on one hand, and a huge, violent group on the other that have actually tried (and succeeded) in taking lives, destroying public buildings and private property, and are completely let off the hook while doing so.

Re:Prohibited

[Bruce Perens]

These guys were not licensed hams, and in any case their communications weren't legal for Amateur Radio. You can program the Baofeng for both ham and non-ham frequencies.

Re:Prohibited

[synaptic]

http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files...

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

"These same terrorists pointed guns at federal officials in the whole Clive Bundy incident ... Non-white people would be dead or beaten or arrested in seconds."

Bollocks. The government agents didn't put away their toys and run home crying because they were dealing with white people. They turned tail and ran because they were facing people who were capable of defending themselves. Government employees only like a fight when they are attacking helpless people or have overwhelming numbers and force on their side. Just like any other bullies, they're cowards when facing someone of similar strength.
Government had no problem whipping out their billy clubs and pepper spray to attack unarmed white OWS protesters now did they?

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of this militia they were assembling for a protest. Probably in their minds it was even considered peaceful even though they had weapons. People who like to tote guns around in public like that claim it is their right and they're not actually hurting anyone so it is "constitutionally" allowed. On a technical level they are right. But, it doesn't mean that the feds aren't going to come down hard on you regardless.

Re:Prohibited

[crow_t_robot]

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Same people doing the same idiotic shit. Way to post AC, fool.

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.

These yahoos couldn't pass even an entry level amateur radio exam. They probably have somebody program their Baofeng radios if that's what they are using.

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

It was, indeed, peaceful. The absence or presence of weapons does not define whether conduct is peaceful or not.
They did, however, still manage to commit several felonies in the process of their protest, the least of which involved barring lawful entry to federal land by force of arms.

They ensured the feds weren't going to 'come down hard' on them by bringing their kids along with them. (They used similar tactics in the stand-off with the feds over Bundy's illegal cattle grazing.) The feds, for their part, handled themselves quite well, refusing to be goaded into a fire fight where those same children might have been injured.

Everything I saw from the 'militia' screamed to me that they were being 'handled' by a PR person, who told them what they could and could not do to avoid losing their 'peaceful protest' status. (In the end, it appears that blue-tarp-dude couldn't live up to that when he was arrested, but that was expected based on his own public statements.)

Re:Prohibited

[Noble713]

LOL, you don't think the military has figured out this frequency hopping problem yet and Homeland Security/FBI et.al. hasn't purchased the necessary hardware?

Me thinks you are bit naïve...

I'm almost finished my Masters thesis on frequency-hopping software-defined radios, so I'm pretty sure neither naivete nor ignorance is a factor. Until recently, the hardware systems involved with frequency memory and principal component analysis, especially over a high bandwidth, were neither cheap nor widespread. This is partly because there aren't too many opponents outside of national militaries who are using FHSS comm systems. The first thing the Feds have to do is realize you are using FHSS in the first place. Then allocate some of those expensive EW assets to monitor or jam your comms.
Like most forms of security, you don't expect to be invulnerable, but to force your opponent to expend a disproportionate amount of resources to compromise your operations.

Ref:
Modern Communications Jamming: Principles and Techniques especially Chapter 12

Re:Prohibited

[Noble713]

Open-source software-defined radios. No FHSS/encryption "built in" so the manufacturer isn't liable.

GNU Radio already supports digital and voice encryption.

Re:Prohibited

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you use SDR with random spectral noise as your channel... completely encrypted and untraceable without the key.

Re:Prohibited

[DogDude]

Oh, please. Not even close to the same thing. A group of black people who took over a federal building with guns would have been killed instantly.

BLM is a movement of people who are angry at ongoing, indemic, systemic racism.

These terrorist assholes are attempting to overthrow the government and kill people because they want a bigger government handout.

Re:Prohibited

[gzuckier]

And so is pointing guns at law enforcement. But hey, they're white!

And in several cases, in custody today or even dead. What's your point?

the guys at the original Bundystock got a free pass for promising to shoot people http://static2.businessinsider... http://www.reviewjournal.com/s... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i... http://www.trbimg.com/img-536a... http://www.motherjones.com/fil... the new bunch overgeneralized from that.

Re:Prohibited

[evilviper]

Brilliant, exchange a cheap hard to track device for an expensive device that transmits continuously,

Low-end smart phones are just as cheap as the least expensive unlicensed 2-way radios. You can quite easily and 100% reliably shut-off the cellular radio, while still using WiFi. They are certainly no easier to track than an unencrypted 2-way radio.

Re:Prohibited

[bobbied]

To think, I invented a way to do DF on a FHSS signals years ago... It's not hard, in theory, to accomplish if you think about how direction finding RF works and don't mind doing a bit of digitization upfront. Once you have the signals digitized, the biggest problem is bringing the compute resources necessary to do the calculations to find the signals in near real time, but once you find one, doing the radio location part pretty much falls out of the math... Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but something tells me if I can think of it, somebody else has likely done it.

Of course, realizing some obscure militia group is using FHSS would be difficult. Where the technology exists, commercial access to such technology is pretty limited and somewhat expensive. I seriously doubt some survivalists are going to have the money, time and expertise to make use of such systems, especially given the ubiquitous and universal nature of FRS equipment. The stuff they use is cheap, sold everywhere and effective enough for their purpose, given I seriously doubt they give a whit about OPSEC. They are not trying to be covert, but overt in their operations. They want their message to get out in their propaganda war, so who cares if the FEDS can buy a $10 radio and monitor what they are saying...

Re:Prohibited

[shaitand]

While this is very cool tech based on the "hardware" page there is no hardware that would be suitable for this type of application. First, the hardware is expensive. Second, while you can tune to a large range of frequencies the boards are actually mainly designed for 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz operation and will function poorly the further from these frequencies you get which have very little reflection so it tries to punch right through everything losing most of it's energy with each obstacle it passes through. This means it requires a great deal of power to get any kind of range. So points for covering this part "make the encryption technology" but a fail on this part "make... the radios themselves and then somehow manage to miniaturize the technology enough to make efficient handhelds."

Compare this with the capabilities of the radios used by these men. They are $50 dual band radios optimized to operate on 70cm and 2m frequencies and their spectrum can be expanded via firmware update. They can be expected to communicate for miles even in the woods and even further with cloud cover using just 5w. Using two of these radios configured correctly and strapped together they will form an improvised repeater that can be put in a high position expanding line of sight dramatically and you can find a how-to telling you exactly how to do it on youtube. It's simple enough to remember and be able to set up in about 2 minutes without anyone in your group really understanding much about how it or their radios work. These radios will operate for hours without recharge but you can very easily improvise solar powered operation for such a repeater with off the shelf components. That can be as simple and effective as a motorcycle or UPS battery, a 20w panel, a small car inverter, and a waterproof ammo can. Or you could just change the batteries every day. You can even float one up with a weather balloon. Alternatively, for under $500 you can get an old ham repeater that is capable of putting a lot more power into the transmission. That is far less mobile, requires more power, and might or might not actually perform better than a network of these improvised repeaters, each forming a unique channel programmed into their radio memory and their radios set to scan through those channels. For not much more an HF transceiver can be used for much longer ranges, think state or even nation hopping distances at very low power.

If you are proficient enough to build hardware for GNU Radio use, instead of a dramatically inferior and far more expensive radio you could just build a second battery operated box that plugs in the mic port and encrypts/decrypts audio. You could likely do this with $5 arduinos and certainly do it with $20 raspberry pis. Then you can just use the cheap off the shelf baofengs they were already using. Unfortunately, this doesn't get you frequency hopping so while the content of your communications would be encrypted you'd want to minimize communications and keep them short so there isn't enough time to home in on your signal. An SDR would be superior in this respect.

All that aside, I'm not arguing that an SDR couldn't be built to operate on these HAM bands. But for the moment I'm trusting in the hardware page of the project as an indicator either that the chips aren't available or that you'd have to code support for such chips because the project is focusing on hardware optimized for unlicensed spectrum where the features of their software can be used legally.

"Standoff"

[Nidi62]

Not really much of a standoff when you have local residents bringing you food and those inside the facility are able to come and go as they pleased. Hell, the leader of the group even left to go visit family in Boise at one point. That being said, as a 2nd Amendment supporter myself, these guys committed treason and openly engaged in an act of war against the US government by occupying federal property by force of arms. I believe that this action was no different than Jon Brown's Raid and the perpetrators should be punished accordingly.

Re: "Standoff"

[IBME]

I'd love to hear your speech again when these nutjobs forcibly remove you citing emenint domain.

Re:"Standoff"

[Nidi62]

Considering what happened to the Native Americans, why is this a surprise to anyone?

These constitution-loving folks seem to have forgotten exactly how the west was won.

"Well, I didn't think they'd do it to white people..."

You do realize even the local Paiute tribe wanted these idiots to leave, right? And that local ranchers actually already had grazing rights on the refuge. They even took down the fence of a local rancher to "help" him and he said he didn't even want them there either.

Re:"Standoff"

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize even the local Paiute tribe wanted these idiots to leave, right?

Of course they did, they know what happens when you mess with US Federal Government.

They say: You mess with the bull, you get the horns.
Well, if you mess with The Eagle, you get The Bio-Weapon (smallpox).

Re:"Standoff"

[shaitand]

These guys formed a civilian militia under the 2nd amendment and occupied lands illegally seized by the federal government which is only permitted limited occupation of private property under the umbrella of a proper and official Congressional declaration of war. In reserving the right to form militias, the people also implicitly reserved the right to act via those militias. The federal government has only the revocable privileges we've granted them via the Constitution, violating the boundaries of the Constitution is illegal and treason as is deliberately ruling in a manner that is not consistent with the Constitution by the supreme court.

A civilian militia outranks the federal government just as a jury does.

Re:"Standoff"

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys formed an armed mob, not a militia. A militia is (as per the Constitution) under the direction and control of the *State*, unless called upon by the federal government. They illegally seized and occupied land which was (and is) legally owned by the federal government, as per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the text of which has been posted elsewhere in the comments, or you can go look it up yourself).

Treason is defined quite concisely in the Constitution itself, and does *not* include the broad swath of stuff you've included in your post.

Before standing up and accusing the federal government of treason, you should actually *learn* about the powers granted to the federal government, none of which has it breached in this instance. The so-called 'militia' you are supporting has openly been practicing armed sedition, in violation of federal, state, *and* local laws.

Re:"Standoff"

[TechnoJoe]

Treason is levying war against the US or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Who did they kill? Who did they even fire upon? How does refusing to leave a wildlife sanctuary -- even when armed -- constitute an act of treason? The one guy who might have tried something (witness reports vary widely, even from fed's pov) was shot and killed. If we start making every piece of civil disobedience treason, then a revolution becomes the only option, instead of a last resort.

I believe that this action was no different than Jon Brown's Raid [wikipedia.org] and the perpetrators should be punished accordingly.

That was one year before the civil war. If you're analogy holds, then shouldn't we be asking ourselves if there's a bigger problem brewing?

As for punishment, since no officers or civilians were killed , I'd be willing to let the followers off with misdemeanor trespassing, and the leaders with what they're charged with now. Once the bodies start piling up however, all bets are off; then, I'd punish them like Jon Brown's raid.

FRS/GMRS Encryption is Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC says it's illegal to encrypt your voice transmissions, even to use code words to obfuscate your meaning. So try buying encrypted radios as a non LEO/Gov.

Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

I will help these people up their game.

not astonishing

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption is forbidden on HAM bands.

You could just transmit there with encryption anyway, especially if you're an armed militia in the middle of relatively-civil disobedience, but in the general case HAMs piss Kool-aid. They are basically government shills and will hunt you down more aggressively than the FCC.

I think it's a weird form of hazing and self-deception. The licensing process is basically like gun registration: we're not taking your radios now, but we want to know where they are in case we want to round them up later. After HAMs register in exchange for temporary protection, instead of saying, "d'oh. Why'd I do that? Now I have something to lose if I annoy FCC, and am easier to track," they say, "you should make the same mistake I did. Being a HAM is great."

consequence is, no one can use encryption in the general case, so there's no encryption on any radio an ordinary person can buy.

It's good to have practice like this. "Gun nuts" should probably expand their advocacy to other things a hypothetical revolution against tyranny would need, like radios. It should have occurred to me before, but didn't.

Re:not astonishing

[castionsosa]

Devil's advocate: What's wrong with playing by the rules?

Radio bandwidth isn't unlimited, and it doesn't take much for one person to make entire frequencies unusable for everyone else in a large area. The government, in this case, keeps the tragedy of the commons from happening, because without regulation, some company, somewhere, will take a band just so their devices would work, and ensure nobody else's would.

Re:not astonishing

[Alypius]

Lots of people (including Slashdot) should advocate this as well. If encryption is the bee's knees on the internet and on cell phones, then it should be awesome for radios as well.

Re:not astonishing

[bobbied]

Boy do you have your lines crossed...

Are Hams territorial about protecting their spectrum space from nuts like you? Yeppers.. We have a game called "fox hunting" which we play often to find and report the unlicensed we hear. But look at it like a community watch organization, where individuals are paying attention and reporting suspicious activity to the police. That's all we do.

Do we register? Yes, the FCC knows my name and address and I am required to identify my transmissions so they can trace them back to me. But your license plate on your car does the same thing. Are you covering up your license plates? No? Don't like the local police pulling you over all the time eh? Well, why do you think that cop behind you is typing into his computer all the time? He's running your plate, finding out if the car is stolen, if you have insurance and a current registration.

However, these guys are NOT on the ham bands. They are on the FRS bands for the most part. These bands have the same general range, the radios are cheaper and are easier to use than their Ham variants. Plus, the hams would be "up in arms" if they heard some local yahoo jawing it up on their spectrum who obviously wasn't a ham.

Re:not astonishing

[ceoyoyo]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Slashdotters encrypt their wifi transmissions. The radio channels we're talking about are intended to be public. Spamming up public discussion boards with encrypted text isn't cool either.

Re:not astonishing

[shaitand]

Actually, it would probably be worthwhile to make a civilian designed and open source audio encryption/decryption rig with an earpiece that plugs into the microphone ports of these radios.

Just don't ship it with the firmware loaded, the hardware technically could be used for all sorts of purposes. Make another option that does funny voices or the like so there is another use for it besides encryption. Make that and the encryption/decryption enabled firmware a download available from servers in numerous countries.

Re:not astonishing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the FCC knows my name and address and I am required to identify my transmissions so they can trace them back to me.

There's no database I can go to to find out your address from your license plate though. Give me your call sign and I'll know your name and home address.

They are on the FRS bands for the most part. These bands have the same general range, the radios are cheaper and are easier to use than their Ham variants. Plus, the hams would be "up in arms" if they heard some local yahoo jawing it up on their spectrum who obviously wasn't a ham.

The Baofengs can use the FRS/MURS/GMRS bands, but not legally, none of them are part 95 compliant.

http://repeaterbook.com/b2e/blog1.php/what-is-legal-and-what

http://forums.radioreference.com/gmrs-frs/275370-great-unofficial-radioreference-frs-gmrs-murs-fact-sheet.html

Unencrypted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Encrypting communication on amateur frequencies is illegal. Owning milspec quality rifles and optics is not. What is the point of this story? That good radios are cheap? Welcome to 2016, where we've long since solved the VHF problem with low cost components. The day China starts making $2K Trijicon ACOGs for $29.95 these "militia" mopes will buy those instead too.

Re:Unencrypted?

[bobbied]

How true... Those Boefang rigs are *almost* cheap enough to throw away when the Li battery discharges, but they work great and paying shipping on a new one gets old. They sell these things by the case because they are *cheap* but serviceable. Don't drop them or carry them out into the rain, but if you do, don't worry, you can afford to have a couple of spares.

Which side has things to hide?

[frovingslosh]

I guess it is the difference between being open and honest and being being on the corrupt murderous side with lots to hide.

Re:Which side has things to hide?

[idontgno]

Stupid != Virtuous

Re:Which side has things to hide?

[wyHunter]

Indeed, it is this.

Re:Which side has things to hide?

[shaitand]

True, but they aren't mutually exclusive either.

General der Nachrichtentruppe Fellgiebel

[Anonymous Coward]

"Funken ist Landesverrat" (Radio transmitting is treason)

He did not know how true his words were.

Neither Did Admiral Dönitz nor the Austrian.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

Carrying rifles and resisting all sorts of police is not illegal ?

If you do a crime, do it properly.

But maybe that is the unspoken rule "we pose with rifles and tell you everything important over the radio, no need to worry"

Re:OMG

[shaitand]

You missed his second statement, "So try buying encrypted radios as a non LEO/Gov." You can be willing to violate the FCC reg all day but that won't make the equipment you need to do so magically appear.

Carrying a rifle is no crime. Resisting police and federal authorities is not neccesarily a crime either. When the actions of police and federal authorities are illegal it is no crime to stop them. Violating the Constitution is illegal, the Constitution is a higher law than the federal government and even the supreme court and the people are a higher law than the Constitution. Somehow people have gotten things screwed up, they think violating the laws congress makes is illegal and a crime but that violating the Constitution is not illegal or a crime. If the supreme court deliberately violates and misinterprets the Constitution which was intentionally written by laymen in plain English and the federal government deliberately ignores it or pays only token attention with loopholes that blatantly subvert the Constitution how are the people to act if not through the military power we specifically reserved for our civilian militias and denied to the federal government except by assembling those militias under a congressional declaration of war? The existence of the standing US army itself is high treason.

Why shouldn't they use consumer gear?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are holed up in what amounts to a state owned shed in the middle of nowhere in protest over a legal dispute. This isn't some sort of waco standoff, no matter how hard some sections of the media try an paint this as domestic terrorism.

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Why act gently if you can act like the SS or the NKVD ?

About As Stupid As Dönitz

[Anonymous Coward]

The Admiral built U-boats like mad, but he was way too thrifty on new Rotors or Re-solderable Rotors (that would even make it hard for today's adversaries for short messages).

I once talked to a modern day officer who did his academic thesis in intelligence.

He argued "building more rotors would have meant less ships". The stupido logic of military men. "50% of our boats are sunken from bad ciphers; let's increase the production program and save on everything else".

SPARTA

[Anonymous Coward]

...will always find a way to crack down on benign folks who don't want to be slaves.

Thanks for reminding us.

They got off easy

[Sir_Eptishous]

If you look at what the Hammonds have done over the last twenty years or so, what the "militia" up there has done, etc; These clowns got off easy.

Because they quote "scripture" and wear cowboy boots, they have gotten the soft approach from law enforcement, and everyone knows it.
Just imagine if something similar had taken place, except the "militia" was composed of African Americans, say, in Oakland or Memphis? It would have been a blood bath from the get go.

Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want? WTF?!? That is what criminals do. Isn't this obvious enough?

Re:They got off easy

[Koreantoast]

They got off easy because the last time these types of groups emerged, the Federal government went in with guns blazing and ended up with a bunch of dead women and children on CNN, leading to a continued escalation until one guy decided to truck bomb a Federal building. That's why they've tried a different approach, because they don't want a repeat of the 1990s. However, given the events of the last couple of days, I think we're going to end up with another Ruby Ridge.

Re:They got off easy

[ScentCone]

Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?

I am curious about which specific acts of lethal force these guys were using when they sat down in that wildlife refuge. Please be specific. Is it similar to the lethal force that the Occupy people used when, say, blocking first responders from getting to some old lady having a heart attack?

Re:They got off easy

[Koreantoast]

Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want? WTF?!? That is what criminals do. Isn't this obvious enough?

Look, I completely disagree with these guys and think what they're doing is stupid and counterproductive, but to say that it's "obvious" isn't correct. There have been other cases of armed actions and occupations that through the lens of history have been celebrated. The violent sitdown strikes of the 1930s are a good example: workers basically occupying a factory, taking up arms and fortifying it, and then engaging in battles against law enforcement and the private owners who try to remove them. Or armed Black Panthers occupying the California state capitol building, marching into a session of the legislature fully armed, and to everyone's credit, there was no violence. Again, I don't agree with this practice, but it is something that does happen in the US every now and then, and we don't simply label them all with the terrorist paintbrush each time.

Re:They got off easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's the shootout with the FBI they had.

Also the statement that they had guns and were going to use them against anyone who tried to remove them.

And shooting at an aircraft.

And the call for militia members to kill law enforcement personal that would prevent them from coming to aid the Branch Dildonians.

But yeah, other than that, it's been pretty peaceful.

Re:They got off easy

[110010001000]

You mean other than illegally carrying AR-15s with full body armor? And then shooting at the FBI at the end of the standoff. I know you are a gun nutter, but yeah, they were using lethal force.

Re:They got off easy

[ScentCone]

You mean other than illegally carrying AR-15s with full body armor?

There's nothing illegal about a semi-automatic rifle. Are you saying that they were concealing them, or using unlawfully shortened barrels, that sort of thing?

And ... do you know what "full body armor" actually is (other than being mostly a Hollywood trope)? There's a reason that police use large physical shields or hardened vehicles when they want "full body" protection. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about wearing any sort of protective clothing. Which item did you think was illegal, specifically?

Re:They got off easy

[Sir_Eptishous]

You bring up some good points.

However, I never compared them to "terrorists", which as we all know is a politically heated phrase that can be used against anyone the media/government/corporations and others can use. I compared them to criminals, which is what they are.

Think about this in the context of our current "law enforcement paradigm" of shooting first and asking questions later, which hasn't abated since Ferguson or any of the other incidents where police just decide to kill someone, because they were nake, high, unarmed and not following directions. Here we have armed trespassers, who flagrantly voice their intent to commit crimes and harm law enforcement, etc;

Hey, thats some double standard were seeing up there in Oregon.

Re:They got off easy

[ScentCone]

the shootout with the FBI they had

You mean the one that involved the traffic stop? You're making it sound like there was some sort of firefight with the people sitting in the wildlife refuge. There was no such event.

the call for militia members to kill law enforcement personal

Do you mean personnel? Other than some hot air from twitter accounts, I don't recall anything that anyone was taking any more seriously than anyone seems to be taking those who associate themselves with the "Black Lives Matter" movement calling for the murder of police, and doing so repeatedly, for months on end. I'm sure you also speak out against them, of course.

Re:They got off easy

[shaitand]

"Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want?"

First, they didn't use lethal force or violence. Second because militias are a Constitutionally protected military force of the people are supposed to be the only domestic ground forces that are allowed. The people reserved that flavor of military force because the government has the capability to break the law and the people have the right to put a stop to it, with force if necessary in the same manner and for the same reasons police sometimes must use force. Third because it was the civilian militias which formed the continental army and were criminals right up until the point they defeated the British and suddenly became patriots.

You might think we are better off with the changes that have occurred in government. But there can be no doubt the supreme court has deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution, it is written in slightly dated English (regulated in the 2nd meant trained for instance at the time) but it was written by laymen in plain English so that anyone could read and understand it without risk of people trying to twist it and find technicalities in nuances of its wording that gave additional power to government and took power from the people. Going to war without a congressional declaration, the DEA and federal restriction of personal uses of substances, gun control on the whole, the existence of the FBI and almost everything they prosecute. The federal government isn't for regulating the actions of people, it is for policing the actions of states and collective bargaining. Everything else the government does is illegal the people who allowed it to happen and who perpetuate it are criminals and traitors guilty of treason.

None of that is speculation, it is simple fact. It isn't that all the results were bad things it's that the methods used have led us so far astray that we actually think of anyone who is trying to act in accord with the Constitution and restore it is a criminal and the only people who are trying to do so are extremist nutjobs. You might think we need gun control or you might be opposed but we should all be ready to jail or hang any member of government who would attempt to steal the power to bring about such a change without a Constitutional amendment because that line and limitation on government power is far more important than any school shooting or target practice. The problem isn't these extremist nutjobs, the problem is that the rest of us are so obedient to an illegal and unconstitutional status quo that they are the only ones actually fighting for the political issues that preempt everything any presidental candidate will voice an opinion on during the election. I don't like the methods of these religious nutjobs any more than you but who are we to argue with their methods when we sit docile allowing our government to engage in treason while we stand by and do nothing to resist?

Re:They got off easy

[grasshoppa]

Sorry, but what?

Blacklivesmatter have shutdown multiple freeways over the past couple months, with little to no real punishment. And yes; They're "Black", not "African American". You very likely have never met a real "African American" ( duel citizenship ). If you had, you'd realize what a poor moniker it is for some of the whitest people you'll ever meet.

These hicks aren't getting any special treatment. We've just learned that if you wait long enough, the embarrassment begins to outweigh the self-righteousness.

Re:They got off easy

[thoromyr]

nice story, but apparently you don't realize the black panthers were labeled as terrorists. If you want to be pedantic the term in the 1970s was more often "extremist" than "terrorist" but in this context they are synonyms (which is why the link refers to putting a black panther on the "terrorist" list).

https://www.rt.com/usa/black-p...

As to the "to everyone's credit there was no violence" you may want to look into the role of the FBI with the Black Panthers.

If you look at the right wing religious extremist and the Black Panthers there is no particular similarity outside a willingness to brandish arms. If that is all it takes for you to paint their respective activities with the same brush, you are missing the details of a lot of recent history.

Re:They got off easy

[crow_t_robot]

Blacklivesmatter use guns, body armor and radios? No, they don't.

Re: They got off easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The civilian militias were criminals right up until the time the french beat the british.

Re:They got off easy

[gzuckier]

If you look at what the Hammonds have done over the last twenty years or so, what the "militia" up there has done, etc; These clowns got off easy. Because they quote "scripture" and wear cowboy boots, they have gotten the soft approach from law enforcement, and everyone knows it. Just imagine if something similar had taken place, except the "militia" was composed of African Americans, say, in Oakland or Memphis? It would have been a blood bath from the get go. Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want? WTF?!? That is what criminals do. Isn't this obvious enough?

http://wp.production.patheos.c...

Re:They got off easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine if something similar had taken place, except the "militia" was composed of African Americans, say, in Oakland or Memphis? It would have been a blood bath from the get go.

How about Baltimore? The rioters were black and caused about $9 million in damage, 130 police were injured, yet there was no "blood bath".
Check your "rage" SJW.

No crypto availible for radios

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no radios available to the public with encryption.

Re:No crypto availible for radios

[silas_moeckel]

Now now I can get 60's era military surplus with DES only takes a dozen d batteries.

Re:No crypto availible for radios

[shaitand]

Yes. And remind me again what matter of imminent danger to the public private communications between citizens present that it completely trumps the powers we reserved in the first and second amendment?

Kudos to these ignorant religious nutjobs because while I am not a fan of their beliefs and methods the good of raising public light on this very thing alone overrides any harm they caused while hanging out in a shed in the woods holding a gun asserting that they'd defend themselves if someone tried to assault and kidnap them.

Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

With a paper-based OTP they are probably more secure than ANYTHING you can buy on the open market. Because you betcha even the expensive stuff is riddled with C-based buffer overflows. Can be exploited to get the key by moderately skilled attackers.

The only disadvantage is Voice Fingerprinting, which of course can communicate important information.

Most folks are just too impatient for OTPs, though. "Lets quickly run over cliff" must be their unspoken motto.

Re:Actually

[TechyImmigrant]

With a paper-based OTP they are probably more secure than ANYTHING you can buy on the open market.

Wow. The least practical key management scheme is the most secure? Let's hope no one manages to recover the pad.

second amendment

[pesho]

The second amendment says nothing about the right to encrypt communications, so why do it?

Re:second amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The First Amendment does not enumerate as a government power the power to control the form of speech(communication).

Re:second amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of a point brought to me before. If encryption is deemed a "munition" by export law then it is a weapon, no? If it is a weapon then it falls under Second Amendment protection as "arms", no? Therefore it appears to me that the right to keep and "bear" (something that might lose some meaning when the "arm" in question is an algorithm) encryption by citizens of the USA is constitutionally protected, no?

Use of any weapon, AR-15 or encrypted communications, against the government is not something I condone. I'm merely pointing out that people should have the right to encrypt their communications if they choose regardless of the medium. This should be protected under the Second Amendment as "arms" or under the First Amendment as people have the right to communicate and associated freely. In some situations the Fourth, Fifth, and other amendments in the Bill of Rights would also apply.

With that said I do believe that encrypted communications on amateur or citizen band radio is bad form. The stated purpose of these bands conflicts with encryption. Use of encryption on business bands should be allowed if it isn't already.

Bro, do you even dollar sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably see currency notations literally hundreds of times a day. How dense do you have to be to repeatedly type "3000$" when "$3000" is drilled into your head all day, every day? Even if it's some other currency?

Re:Bro, do you even dollar sign?

[crow_t_robot]

Units, brah:

$ = USD

3000 USD = 3000 $

Like:

mm = millimeter

34 mm = 34 millimeter

Do you even science, bro?

not the only ones

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not the only military in town that did things unencrypted.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html

Communists

[Anonymous Coward]

...are offended by the very idea of the population not being helpless victims of their Spartan Nastiness, which they plan to establish.

And large portions of the mass media are run by crypto-commies and similar offsprings of banksterism. Marx wrote his shite in London...

Black Gangsters

[Anonymous Coward]

...walk around with guns, sell dope in your magnificent cities. Only to be helped by government subsidies from idiots like you.

They're not exactly tech savvy

[Anonymous Coward]

These are people who stockpile toilet paper for the zombie apocalypse. Having that mentality doesn't exactly correlate with being a rational, tech-minded person.

Compare That To Progressives

[Anonymous Coward]

aka. "Communists": 100 million people forcefully killed in the 20th century. Mostly for "mind crimes". Probably the same number killed from dumbass communist-maoist economics.

Nothing new here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new there. The protestors at the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle were using cheap FRS radio that were easily monitored. If I recall correctly, those trying to limit the protests even injected false messages into the system.

Sending in the clear has its downside, but so does encrypted military communication. It often results in two groups that need to talk not being able to do so. It's also possible to talk in the clear in cryptic terms that confuse outsiders listening in.

Finally, much of this investigation has a 'gosh' flavor to it of the sort that someone who knows the real world of radio communications will find amusing. Talk like:

"Some Ham operator with a huge kilowatt radio may lie in wait, then decide to jam militia bootleggers at an opportune moment, thus blinding the militia comms in the heat of a mission. The pitiful Baofengs are no match against this kind of electronic warfare attack."

Only illustrates how little the authors know. Those "huge kilowatt" radios are for HF. The "pitiful Baofengs" are VHF/UHF, where few hams operate at high power. And to even hear a Baefeng, the operator would need to be within a few miles. Jamming, not something hams are ever inclined to do, is easily bypassed. Just switch to a different frequency.

Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[whitroth]

I am *sick* and tired of these self-proclaimed patriots... who want to take down the federal government, In the real world, as opposed to the la-la land they live in, that's called ->TREASON-.

Or, for a funny commentary, the last few days of the comic strip Non Sequitur.

              mark

PS: the gov't can't own land? So, we don't own the Louisiana Purchase, or Seward's Folly (aka Alaska) (I doubt Putin would take back Palin's home porch....)?

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[ArchieBunker]

I like when people fuck with the government. It keeps the feds on their toes and reminds them that they are public servants.

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[ScentCone]

TREASON

Really? Which treasonous act, per the constitutional definition of that word? Read Article III, Section 3, and then get back to us with specifics.

Or are you so willing to mis-use that word that you'd agree that, say, all of the Occupy idiots were also being treasonous? No? I see.

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[Nidi62]

TREASON

Really? Which treasonous act, per the constitutional definition of that word? Read Article III, Section 3, and then get back to us with specifics.

Levying war against the United States. They used force (threat) of arms to occupy a federal installation. That the installation is not military nor was it defended/presently occupied is a moot point.

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[ScentCone]

Levying war against the United States.

So what you're saying is that you really don't know what the phrase means. Or, you think you do, and you'd also say that the tens of thousands of people who made up the idiotic Occupy activities were also treasonous, right? Right? No? Oh.

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[Nidi62]

So what you're saying is that you really don't know what the phrase means. Or, you think you do, and you'd also say that the tens of thousands of people who made up the idiotic Occupy activities were also treasonous, right? Right? No? Oh.

If Occupy was treason then so was the Birmingham bus boycott. Protesting isn't levying war. Bearing arms against a country is. And when armed people have occupied a government facility they aren't criminals, they aren't breaking and entering, they have declared war.

Re:Tired of this, and good on the FBI

[ScentCone]

Yup, so what you're saying is that, indeed, you have no idea what you're talking about. "Occupy" did forcibly take over "government facilities" (for months at a time), did use violence, and did seek to intimidate and destroy. The fact that you can't distinguish between not buying a bus ticket and preventing a dying person from getting to the hospital by chaining off government facilities, or destroying someone's property and source of income ... that's all we need to know about your (lack of) critical thinking skills. More likely you do get it, and you're just being a disingenuous troll.

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know in Vietnam they are using the Russian-Muhammad religion.

BINGO

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spartans (of all shades from Clinton to Sanders to all the femi-Nazis) will inflate EVERYTHING which offends them into Terrorism. Then they will call in their version of the NKVD to crack down with ACTUAL violence.

Whenever they hail the french revolution, they hail Mass Murder. When they hail "progress" they hail progressive mudering of millions. That's their plan.

Link

[Anonymous Coward]

..please. I am genuinely interested and still do not believe.

Crypto is a weapon, even though they superficially relaxed that.

If they pull an NKVD

[Anonymous Coward]

...they will claim your codewords for locations already constitute a cipher and therefore makes you radio-criminals.

Have your guns in working condition...

Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Hams are allowed to operate up to something like 750 Watt, regardless of band.

If this place were above an oil reservoir, you betcha some half-criminal ham would be drafted in by some monied commercial interest to do exactly what you described. Some simple software will monitor the band and switch the jammer frequency in a matter of milliseconds.

Mysteriously, this specialist would be either defend by a s

A $30 RPI, the $20 TV receiver and an RS232-controlled transmitter can do this.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk is cheap

How is this stupider than Hillary Clinton's email?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. Technically illiterate and incompetent people make bad decisions. Hillary's no different than these jerks

Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a protest not really a standoff. They continued to interact with law enforcement and in several town meetings in the area, coming and going, clearly it was not hostile or violent in any way..

Open communications mean anybody can listen in and hear that it's peaceful, but if they so desire, they could you there own short hand code.

Re:Protest

[oh_my_080980980]

You might want to talk to the towns people, that's not how they felt.

For all intensive purposes....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to mod you up, but I just couldn't get over your sig. The phrase "For all intensive purposes..." is just wrong. See http://www.urbandictionary.com...

Re:For all intensive purposes....

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL...whooosh

Protip: (s)he's not begging the question either.

Open Channel

[nehumanuscrede]

Only law enforcement and / or the government can afford the good toys. When have you EVER seen an off the shelf radio system with decent encryption and on the fly rekeying abilities ? Yeah, me either.

Just be mindful the channel is open and be selective in what you say. In fact, knowing you're transmitting in the clear AND knowing they're listening to it can be very useful if you say the right things.

As for AR prices, an Acog optic will set you back $1500. Very easy to get to $3k when you start swapping in high-quality ( read that accurate ) parts. Add on a decent lighting system, a tax stamp or two and maybe a suppressor and you'll be shocked at how much you just spent.

It's interesting how many posts belittle the folks in question. Yet, you should realize that sometimes the other side just refuses to take no for an answer and diplomacy just doesn't work.

I belive this country was born of the same " weekend warriors " who finally had enough of the Crowns bullshit those many years ago.

You either stand up for your beliefs, ( right or wrong ) or stand aside as those with power crush them for you.

Re: Open Channel

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the "weekend warriors" that didnt want to pay any of the costs associated with keeping their mooching asses safe during the Indian Wars and then treacherously turned upon their benefactors as they didnt want any disruption to their profitable smuggling routes and then luckily got bailed out of the shitstorm they started by the French ?

Are these fuckos still there?

[Anonymous Coward]

We obviously haven't sent them enough dildos yet. As they haven't gotten the message that they should go fuck themselves. I call on all patriotic freedom loving Americans (and foreign supporters if so inclined) to send these fuckos a dildo with which they can fuck themselves. If you can afford to send them a bag of dicks that would also be helpful as they can eat a bag o dicks.

Not a military op...

[MercTech]

You really have to consider that a protest is not a military operation. Using unsecure public frequency Baofeng radios is quite legal. Using encrypted equipment without a FCC license is NOT legal.

    Again, the protest in Oregon was not a military operation but a protest by ranchers that some of the more clueless of the media keep trying to make a militia attack.

really

[Anonymous Coward]

all they would have to do is speak in code signs to obtain op sec

A bunch of liars

[Anonymous Coward]

The Feds are covering this upðY