10 ms·

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all ta

These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. The Army surplus look, radios with whip antennae, etc., is fun. But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. But I guess it's hard to keep morale up if you just go to meetings where you practice blending into population. Like, an organized concealed carry sit-in at Starbucks where you don't tell anyone you're carrying and try not to be noticed? Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages?

sevensor 11y ago
> Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages This is a requirement for operating an amateur radio in most jusisdictions. Ham radio is the concealed-carry of communications technology.
golergka 11y ago
> But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. It's very effective indeed, if you disregard all problems with international law and basic human morals. It's a tactic that have been very successful for Hamas in recent years, for example. Fighting in civilian clothing means that (1) your adversaries will kill much more civilians, honestly mistaking them for you and (2) all your losses can be easily counted as "civilians" by even slightly biased observers. Next step in effectivety is just keeping a couple of children around you in a firefight. Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting against always assume some form of uniform, because among other things, it helps to keep at least some rules of engagement in place and protect innocents to some extent.
- gaius 11y ago
  Hence the orange jumpsuits of the Rebel Alliance.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- davidw 11y ago
  > Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting 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'.
- Aloha 11y ago
  A quote comes to mind - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." or in more polite terms - "One man's hero is another man's villain." 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.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  "International law" is one of the things that people like that really hate, c.f. all those people getting mad about "agenda 21".
jonathankoren 11y ago
> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2]. [1] http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-rifles-hunting http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-ri... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tactical-armor-before-1753821526 http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tac...
- ptomato 11y ago
  The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers. Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.
- hga 11y ago
  The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings). Too powerful for drywall.) I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home. and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game. They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington 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.
jcranmer 11y ago
The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little. The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me." To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways.
- tedks 11y ago
  This is a naive and over-optimistic post. You're allowing the horns-effect bias to overcome your rationality. The world we live in is big, and there are a lot of different people in it. Some of them are smart, and some of them are stupid. Some of them are leftists, some of them are rightists. There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss. There are, undoubtedly, militant right-wing militia members who have a very strong grasp of military strategy, insurgency strategy, insurgent tactics, and are planning to use these to fight their enemies. By their very nature, you will not know about these people. They will not occupy a federal office in a dramatic attempt to coerce the state into doing what they want it to do. They will be completely invisible until they decide to act, and when they do, it might not even be clear that they are acting if they don't want that. Intelligent people who are happy and healthy and well-fed rarely turn to these sorts of things, but the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring. Further, since the Internet is essentially causing massive global-scale group polarization, it might be much more likely for an intelligent person who might otherwise hold moderate beliefs to be radicalized. It can happen, and because it has billions of chances to, it almost certainly will.

sevensor 11y ago

> Or, have radio conversations where you discuss nothing of substance and avoid transmitting any coded messages This is a requirement for operating an amateur radio in most jusisdictions. Ham radio is the concealed-carry of communications technology.

golergka 11y ago

> But in any scenario where militia were up against organized force, I would think they should try to blend into the population. It's very effective indeed, if you disregard all problems with international law and basic human morals. It's a tactic that have been very successful for Hamas in recent years, for example. Fighting in civilian clothing means that (1) your adversaries will kill much more civilians, honestly mistaking them for you and (2) all your losses can be easily counted as "civilians" by even slightly biased observers. Next step in effectivety is just keeping a couple of children around you in a firefight. Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting against always assume some form of uniform, because among other things, it helps to keep at least some rules of engagement in place and protect innocents to some extent.

gaius 11y ago
Hence the orange jumpsuits of the Rebel Alliance.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
davidw 11y ago
> Idealist militants, on the other hand, who are concerned with well-being of civilians they are fighting 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'.
Aloha 11y ago
A quote comes to mind - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." or in more polite terms - "One man's hero is another man's villain." 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.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
"International law" is one of the things that people like that really hate, c.f. all those people getting mad about "agenda 21".

jonathankoren 11y ago

> These photos remind me of William Gibson's observations on tactical fashion -- if you are really a militant, then the last thing you'd want to do is look all tactical and stuff. Hear. Hear. The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. Too powerful for drywall.) and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game.[1] However, you look like a fucking action movie star. Tactical vests, "every day carry" trauma kits, throat mics, body armor, etc. There's no practical reason for any of these, other than the owner wants to play dress up. Businesses know this. Why else would say armor manufacturer AR5000 unveil a Boba Fett helmet[2]. [1] http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-rifles-hunting http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/campfire/are-assault-ri... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tactical-armor-before-1753821526 http://io9.gizmodo.com/check-out-this-boba-fett-inspired-tac...

ptomato 11y ago
The AR-15 is almost certainly the most-used gun (not a majority, just more used than any other model of gun) for hunting in the US, though it's more common for varminting than for medium-large game. Hunting e.g. whitetail deer with .223 is fine even, though you're somewhat restricted in shots you can take for a humane kill vs. other calibers. Also, it's a perfectly reasonable gun for home defense - compared to e.g. a 12 gauge shotgun which is commonly recommended, a typical AR-15 length (with extendable stock extended) might be around 37", whereas a typical 12 gauge shotgun even of the tactical variety (I.E. with an 18" barrel instead of a 24 or 28" hunting barrel) would be at least that long, but usually a bit longer. #00 buckshot has about the same drywall penetration as .223 FMJ, but using JHP (preferable anyway for defensive purposes) instead significantly reduces that.
hga 11y ago
The AR-15 segment of gun culture is essentially cosplay. For example, the AR-15 is impractical gun for both home defense (Too long to for hallways. All those who advise and use shotguns disagree, and a short carbine is certainly more manageable than a 20ga or greater shotgun. And they're certainly easier to aim under stress than a handgun, and ideal for bunker tactical situations (e.g. you stay in your bedroom waiting for the police to arrive, too bad for the intruder if he tries to break into that room ignoring your warnings). Too powerful for drywall.) I'm told this is most certainly not the case, or, rather, handgun bullets and heavy shot loads penetrate a lot more. I don't know because I prefer a 1911 for inside the home self defense, but I would most certainly use a rifle outside the home if opportunity allowed. Plenty of people have used AR-15 pattern rifles in self-defense, inside and outside the home. and actually illegal to hunt with because the bullets are literally too small to bring down game. They're fine for anything hog sized or below, and as far as I know legal in those domains. With the right modern bullet selection would be OK for white tail deer and I believe legal in some states (but I hope not for bigger game), but the laws from before the revolution in hunting bullets obviously weren't written with those in mind. I mean, it was derived from this successful varmint round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.222_Remington 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.

jcranmer 11y ago

The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little. The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me." To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways.

tedks 11y ago
This is a naive and over-optimistic post. You're allowing the horns-effect bias to overcome your rationality. The world we live in is big, and there are a lot of different people in it. Some of them are smart, and some of them are stupid. Some of them are leftists, some of them are rightists. There is no law of the universe that precludes smart people from believing in ideologies or causes that you personally dismiss. There are, undoubtedly, militant right-wing militia members who have a very strong grasp of military strategy, insurgency strategy, insurgent tactics, and are planning to use these to fight their enemies. By their very nature, you will not know about these people. They will not occupy a federal office in a dramatic attempt to coerce the state into doing what they want it to do. They will be completely invisible until they decide to act, and when they do, it might not even be clear that they are acting if they don't want that. Intelligent people who are happy and healthy and well-fed rarely turn to these sorts of things, but the world is changing rapidly, and there are no guarantees what the future will bring. Further, since the Internet is essentially causing massive global-scale group polarization, it might be much more likely for an intelligent person who might otherwise hold moderate beliefs to be radicalized. It can happen, and because it has billions of chances to, it almost certainly will.