OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Equipment and Frequencies (wordpress.com) 336
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.
Wannabe soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wannabe soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wannabe soldiers (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: Wannabe soldiers (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Wannabe soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.
Re: Wannabe soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
>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: (Score:3)
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 trad
Re: Wannabe soldiers (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 pr
Re: (Score:3)
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
Prohibited (Score:5, Informative)
Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 hav
"Standoff" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Standoff" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Which side has things to hide? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid != Virtuous
They got off easy (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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?
... 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
And
Re: (Score:3)
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
second amendment (Score:3)
Tired of this, and good on the FBI (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I like when people fuck with the government. It keeps the feds on their toes and reminds them that they are public servants.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 $1200+ now). It has proven to be extremely accurate, shooting decent factory ammo in 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards and 1 MOA groups out to 300 yards. So, in the 5 shot groups I usually shoot when testing handloads or new factory ammo, that's 5 shots in approximately 1/2 inch at 100 yards and 5 shots in approximately 3 inches at 300 yards. When you are aiming at a man sized target with a vital area in say, a 12 inch circle, how much accuracy do you reallllly need? Even the crappiest AR available for sale will do 3 MOA at 300 yards, giving you a 9 inch "hit zone". A lot of the guys with expensive AR's are either compensating for poor shooting skills, trying to impress their friends, or are doing competition shooting (particulary 3 gun, with the requirement of shooting on the move having, the most inherently accurate rifle possible helps compensate).
Re: (Score:2)
Iron sights can be hard to see in low-light conditions. Simply stated, iron sights are fine when you have a little extra time and conditions are good.
Having a decent red dot just makes thing quicker under more conditions than iron sights.
Re:+3000$ AR15 rifles (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 $3000 AR's. It has always amazed me, tools like that, who look like they should be trusted with anything more lethal that a pointed stick, walking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: +3000$ AR15 rifles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A huge chunk of that change you throw into your AR
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 oper
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Militia ? (Score:5, Informative)
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:
18 U.S.C. Â 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Link for reference [fbi.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 contin
Re: (Score:2)
The US army on the other hand, those are illegal combatants outside of time of a Congressional declaration of war.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Militia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Militia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Militia ? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 pro
Re: (Score:3)
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 tryi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 inte
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Where
Re: Ever see the ads on FB? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Not to mention there are no defence contracts involving the AR-15, perhaps the AC is confusing the M-16 and AR-15?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 li
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now now I can get 60's era military surplus with DES only takes a dozen d batteries.