Militia Radio Frequencies (opens in new tab)

1. Actually, the .223/5.56mm round has less penetration in residential[1] that most handgun rounds due to its tumbling characteristics.

2. I'd say the AR-15 is impractical for home defense due to its stigma of being an evil black rifle, and that it seems like "overkill" to uneducated people. That's a shame, due to point #1, that it has less drywall/wood penetration than most handgun rounds.

The AR-15 is a pretty useful and relatively economical system, due to its modularity. That said, I agree with a lot of your other opinions regarding elements of the gun/tacticool culture.

[1.] In the drywall/stick-built US, anyway.

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

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

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

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

I won't tell anyone they shouldn't use a handgun or shotgun or AR-15 for their defense - they all have their place, but I know which one I wouldn't want my wife to have if I were the bad guy. It has something to do with being light weight, very low recoil, fast follow up, multiple rounds and the way the steel silhouette made a "ding" each time she pulled the trigger.

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

ARs are a very reasonable general purpose rifle. Medium size rounds, cheap parts, lots of flexibility, highly standardized, easy to maintain.

It's also disingenuous to ignore recreational shooting. Hunting and home defense are not the only uses for firearms.

In the case of militiamen, it's also a perfectly good combat rifle. The US military has been using it since Vietnam with mostly success (excepting a few early issues).

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

Too powerful for drywall.)

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

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

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

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

In war, what is right, or what is wrong on a decision by decision question, is often overshadowed by the meta moral questions of the broader context.

Going beyond the contradiction in that sentence, there appear to be a lot of quite diverse people in some of these groups, some of whom might care deeply about the well-being of others, and others who are simply spoiling for a fight. Some people in this latest event in Oregon were very much focused on intimidating locals who happened to work for the federal government in some capacity, or who happened to be on the 'wrong side'.

As a proponent of non-violence I have no real support for such activities but after having read much of the constitutional debates I feel compelled to point out the fact that a civilian militia as a check/balance on government power as well as for auxiliary military purposes was a very considerable topic of discussion in the constitutional debates of the founding fathers:

>No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use.

-George Mason, "The Father of the Bill of Rights", Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8...

However, others such as Alexander Hamilton noted the logistical difficulties of sustaining such a militia:

>A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1788

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

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

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

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

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

oh yes, it's quite terrible. I helped my friend pick up a mobile radio from HRO and made him hit our repeater, but I couldn't pick up the transmission from the repeater for some reason. as you know, the TX frequency of the repeater is 0.6MHz away from the RX frequency. It turns out my crappy baofeng was being overloaded by the 5W transmit power my friend was blasting.

At least with a purpose-built ham radio you can enter frequencies directly on the handset, even if it's a pain. Although the programming software for them is almost as bad.

As someone considering getting into this, can you make a couple of suggestions of surplus commercial gear in this price range (ie, under $75)? TIA

I believe that is correct (also a ham).

For curious non-hams, here is how it works. In the US, generally there are three ways radio bands are licensed.

1. No license is required for the operator to use the band, but the equipment used must be certified for operation in that band.

2. The operator has to have a license to use the band and the equipment must be certified for operation in that band.

3. The operator has to have a license to use the band, but can use any equipment as long as what is actually transmitted meets the legal technical requirements for operation on that band (power levels, modulation types, and so on).

An example of the first method is the Family Radio Service (FRS) bands.

An example of the second method is the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). When I say that the operator has to have a license, that does not necessarily mean that the person actually operating the radio has to have a license. With GMRS, for instance, a business can get a license and that covers employee use without the individual employees needing to get licenses.

Ham radio falls under the third method, and offhand I can't think of anything else that does. When a licensed ham is operating a radio all the FCC cares about is what comes out of the antenna, not what equipment produced it.

The way hams get licensed is also quite different. The FCC takes a very hands off approach to ham licensing.

To get a ham license, you have to pass an exam. For the entry level license, that is a 35 question multiple-choice exam that almost anyone here on HN could learn enough to pass in a couple weekends. There is a license level above that which gives you access to more ham bands, which you get by passing another 35 question exam which is a little harder. There is a third license level above that which allows you full access to everything hams are allowed to do. That one is a 50 question exam and is quite a bit harder than the other two.

The FCC neither makes the exams nor administers them. They have authorized 14 organizations as "Volunteer Exam Coordinators" (VECs), and the VECs are responsible for maintaining the pool of exam questions, constructing exams from the question pool, training and certifying people to give the exams, giving the exams, grading them, and reporting the results back to the FCC so the FCC can issue the licenses.

Rifle. Not firearm. Otherwise every pistol that isn't a muzzle/breech loader or revolver is an 'assault weapon', which is makes the distinction even more functionally useless.

That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.

/sarcasm please god let this line have been unneeded

(Though I'm not sure it really tracks with the definition of a "terrorist," since a terrorist is an armed combatant who explicitly strikes at civilians instead of at their government. A better term here might be more 19th-century-flavored words like insurrectionary or seditionist, though terms like those fell out of use as rebel and guerrilla groups abandoned direct attacks on governments in favor of terroristic tactics.)

  (5) [T]he term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— 
    (A)   involve acts dangerous to human life that are a 
          violation of the criminal laws of the United 
          States or of any State; 

    (B)  appear to be 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 
    (C)   occur primarily within the territorial
          jurisdiction of the United States. 

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331