Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Albatross wrote:

That wouldn't be cool at all. Thousands of people died in the US civil war. I have family in the South.

Especially since we'd win this time.

I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

We have both, which is one of many reasons why we'd win this time.

 Ratbarf wrote:

The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.

And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?

As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.

The point being that these claims appear in a cyclical manner. None of the Republicans who claimed there would be assassinations were 'in the know'' about those attempts. It's just empty talk, designed to make the situation appear more radical then it really is.

Basically, it's tin foil hat season.

HA! In your face, white people!

I'm black by marriage...

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

My money is on the government anti-militia operatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm black by marriage...

[Social darwinist mode on]

Have you noticed a difference in your ability to displace yourself laterally?

[/social darwinist mode off]

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I really have no idea, honestly the only reason I'm NOT down there already is the gun laws, makes my trade hard to ply, though it seems the hunting and shooting community is pretty vibrant in spite of the legal restrictions.

The legal restrictions basically stop people having guns in their homes, but they don't stop anyone from target shooting or hunting. They make it more expensive and more annoying.

Honestly the biggest thing holding back hunting in Australia is that it doesn't work as well, as a sport. The wooded areas here aren't as vast, and don't have much in the way of decent sized mammals that are fun to hunt. I mean, what's the thrill in hunting koalas? They just sit there stoned.

People go shooting kangaroos and rabbits and stuff, but that's mostly in scrubland, and is for pest control, not fun.

People go wild boar hunting up in the mangroves of Queensland, and that's fething dangerous, but that's kind of the point.

Well the restrictions don't really stop any one, at least not how I'm reading the various classes of weapons permit. Just have to get a decent safe. So if you're someone like me who would probably be looking to acquire all the permits, having a safe that's good even through Class D weapons at your first inspection would be a solid plan, even if getting Class D permits is impossible outside of certain career fields. But yes, expensive and annoying is a good way to put it, the restrictions I've heard about but can't find the law on, on ammunition storage makes the popular American past time of reloading ammunition a right pain in the donkey as well.

You can hunt Koalas? Why would you bother? Seems like it'd be less work to grab'em buy hand and sell them as living teddy bears in bulk.

I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting though I hear they're quite tasty but coyote hunting for pest control is probably the most trigger time I get in these days and they aren't edible in most people's eyes. Not sure how Dingos are for hunting legality but I bet they could be fairly challenging as well. Squaring off with a predator of any kind is always an interesting experience. Thankfully I can have just as much fun on the range so your lack of large game isn't too much of a "no fly" for me.

Hunting wild pigs of any kind, any where, is always fething dangerous. Do the boar down under get up into the same several hundred pound weight class as their American cousins?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I dunno, a fellow named Cleetus who's been shooting since he could walk vs. a guy who can't figure out that holding a gun like they do on TV is the wrong way to do it....

Yeah I'm putting my money on the hillbillies.

That site seems mean spirited.

Since I have been old enough to vote, my choice for President was elected twice and not elected the three times

I never rubbed it in the face when my choice won or acted like a child when my choice lost. Some people are poor winners and poor losers.

I blame the removal of dodge ball from middle schools.

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

It may be a little mean spirited, but to ignore the hysteria these people have had over President Obama's presidency is to completely misunderstand why this is so funny.

These people are crying and howling in terror because they are afraid that a 3% increase in the top income tax bracket means socialism, and that they failed to "take their country back" and lots of other stupid things.

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.

Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".

Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.

So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.

 kronk wrote:
That site seems mean spirited.

Since I have been old enough to vote, my choice for President was elected twice and not elected the three times

I never rubbed it in the face when my choice won or acted like a child when my choice lost. Some people are poor winners and poor losers.

I blame the removal of dodge ball from middle schools.

^^^ that... right there my good friends... is the root of most societal problems....

Audie Murphy was a redneck. Kind of puts my bet on that side of the equation.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Audie Murphy was a redneck. Kind of puts my bet on that side of the equation.

He was? He didn't come across as a redneck to me. Southern sure, but a hillbilly?

I didn't say hillbilly. He was from a poor sharecropping family in Texas, not from the Appalachians.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.

Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".

Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.

So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.

Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I didn't say hillbilly. He was from a poor sharecropping family in Texas, not from the Appalachians.

Oh, I thought the term was interchangeable. What's the difference?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.

Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".

Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.

So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.

Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?

Orks, Rednecks...same difference probably. Although the teeth-wealth ratio might be reversed.

 d-usa wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.

Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".

Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.

So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.

Au contraire, the rednecks follow a basic hierarchy of right makes right; the biggest and baddest of them will surely acquire power.
The size of his fire arm and vehicle is also a factor....
....or am I thinking of Orks?

Orks, Rednecks...same difference probably. Although the teeth-wealth ratio might be reversed.

snoted out my cawphee... not cool!

 kronk wrote:
That site seems mean spirited.

Since I have been old enough to vote, my choice for President was elected twice and not elected the three times

I never rubbed it in the face when my choice won or acted like a child when my choice lost. Some people are poor winners and poor losers.

I blame the removal of dodge ball from middle schools.

In Califorinia we still had dodge ball in high school. But only when it rained. And i think occasionally we used soccer balls.

Mannahnin wrote:Audie Murphy was a redneck. Kind of puts my bet on that side of the equation.

As are a majority of combat soldiers regardless of race. It leads me to believe that redneck life is better suited to warfare than urban bangers whose stereotypical incompetence in actually killing the people they are aiming for is legendary.

 Albatross wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

The same assassination nonsense was popular after the last election. Funnily, it was Rep stating that Obama was going to be such a divider that such assassination would be inevitable.

And what, there's been like 3 attempts so far?

As a side note I think it would be pretty cool if the South did decide to "Rise Again." At the very least it would be more entertaining than what's happening right now in US politics.

That wouldn't be cool at all. Thousands of people died in the US civil war. I have family in the South.

Pah.

I live in the South. Imagine how much of an inconvenience an uprising would be for me!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

In Califorinia we still had dodge ball in high school. But only when it rained. And i think occasionally we used soccer balls.

Wow. +1 for Cali.

I think dodgeball was my favorite PE activity.

Yeah, me too. I liked dodgeball when I was a kid.

BRING BACK DODGEBALL GAWDAMIT

We talking war in the south? Be a long drawn out affair for quite a few people who has not encounter a southern belle

on the side note.
SOmeone said we lost the Afghan War.....who lost the Afghan War? Clarify please so I can actually laugh

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think in the battle between southern rednecks vs. urban gang bangers, my money may be on the thugs.

I don't think you really beleive that.

Gang-bangers have one advantage: organizational structure.

Gangs are large and have build in leadership structures. As far as any sort of incident command system, they are already much better organized than the rednecks. They have crews, they are used to taking orders, they are used to commanding troops. That is a big advantage in the all out "war of the stereotypes".

Rednecks are loners, they value their independence and doing things their own way. They would be much harder to structure into regiments. While this may give them an advantage in a special-ops kind of role, by and large it will make them less effective as combat units.

So as long as you don't try to put a leader of one gang in command over the soldiers of another, they will beat the rednecks.

I think you underestimate the family and community structure Redknecks have

But they have more infighting!

 d-usa wrote:
But they have more infighting!

Heh.

 d-usa wrote:
But they have more infighting!

So do Orks. Now remind me who the IoM have trouble dealing with on a daily basis?

 purplefood wrote:
This one made me laugh

OMG this. This is epic. I've actually heard of a few people who voted for Romney (IRL and in my local town mind you) claiming they are going to move to Canada because our country is going to hell. Their main reason? You guessed it, their reason is they are against the socialized health care. Just let that sink in a bit.