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.

Hanith wrote:

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.

Well, I would like to pretend to threaten to move to the UK because I don't trust us to get the health care right. I don't have a problem with socialized health care. I think that, specifically, sounds awesome. I'd probably not have nerve damage in one of my hands if I could have seen a doctor about it years ago without massive financial repercussions. But what I do have is many concerns and doubts about an overcomplicated stop-gap measure too complex to understand without passing it that impacts an industry with a whooooole lotta money, and potentially a lot to lose.

The problem with talking about systems change is that people always want a revolution. That's not what's needed. Revolutions cause chaos. You want gradual, incremental change, so each shock is absorbed by the system instead of causing chaotic, unforeseen consequences. To use the metaphor I'm most comfortable with, if you change an ecosystem gradually over time, you get evolution. If you change it suddenly, you get extinction.

Anyhow. I'm sure most people in the thread knew all this, but I just skulled a beer and I felt like writing down what I was thinking.
Thanks for an entertaining election guys.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

I think it varies a little from state to state, but from memory you also need to have a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. If you're just wanting to hunt, I think you have to join a shooting club of some sort to qualify. Otherwise, being a farmer is an auto-qualify...

You can hunt Koalas?

No, they're protected.

I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting

You'll only say that until the first time one of the big ones tries to disembowel you...

And while they may just look like slightly warped deer, they're surprisingly tough.

 insaniak wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
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.

I think it varies a little from state to state, but from memory you also need to have a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. If you're just wanting to hunt, I think you have to join a shooting club of some sort to qualify. Otherwise, being a farmer is an auto-qualify...

I disagree on pest control hunting, Roos being a herd animal probably makes it slightly less exciting

You'll only say that until the first time one of the big ones tries to disembowel you...

And while they may just look like slightly warped deer, they're surprisingly tough.

Well I'm a gunsmith by trade so I can probably qualify professionally, (I sure fecking hope so XD) but I'd join local hunting and target shooting clubs any way, I enjoy both activities and it lets me go where my customer base is.

As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey. That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.

Getting drowned by a kangoroo would make for an interesting death.

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

My money would be on the redneck.

This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.


This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Getting drowned by a kangoroo would make for an interesting death.

More interesting then being gored to death by a deer any way

 labmouse42 wrote:

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

My money would be on the redneck.

This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.


This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.

Surprisingly that gang banger has a BETTER shooting stance then most, he at least has both hands on the weapon. I recommend equipping your 'bangers n' thugs with the following equipment to make them more combat efficient.



Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Glocks are so popular with both thugs and cops?

 labmouse42 wrote:

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

My money would be on the redneck.

This is not a way to shoot accurately. You've got a range of a few feet at best. I grant you that somes its all you need, but its inaccurate as heck and risks return fire.


This is the redneck taking a shot from 100 yards away. The redneck does not even let the gang-banger know whats coming.

Thing is this isn't a one on one contest, it's "Rednecks" vs "Thugs". Rednecks are a best a loose collection of backwards rural folks. A great many a gangs are efficiently run, highly organized, well equipped and ruthless criminal organizations that are absolutely massive in terms of membership. Just on sheer numbers the gang bangers are gonna win, and in a dedicated conflict they're going to have access to better hardware. Never mind the fact that not every thug is a sideways-gun holding incompetent and a great many of them are probably very efficient killers.

 Chongara wrote:
Thing is this isn't a one on one contest, it's "Rednecks" vs "Thugs". Rednecks are a best a loose collection of backwards rural folks.

You say that, but rednecks have gotten organized in the past. They would not be picked off one at a time, I assure you.

Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.

Poor Mitt is also losing friends
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/tech/social-media/romney-facebook-friends/

If losing the presidential election wasn't enough, Mitt Romney has been hemorrhaging Facebook friends.
People began unliking Romney's official Facebook page soon after the election results came in last week. The Washington Post noticed the drop on Friday, when the GOP presidential candidate's page was losing 593 likes an hour.

By Saturday, Mashable said the exodus was up to 847 friends an hour, and as of Monday morning, Romney's Facebook page continued to lose around 11 likes every minute.

For those who enjoy interactive graphics with their schadenfreude, the site DisappearingRomney.com shows Romney's Facebook likes dropping in real time. A ticker at the bottom of the page tallies how many people have unliked Romney's page just in the time users have been on the site.

Not that Romney is hurting for social media pals. As of Monday afternoon, he still had more than 12 million Facebook fans and 1.7 million followers on Twitter.

I was just looking at http://disappearingromney.com/ In the time it took me to post this, he lost 45 'friends'

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.

Let's assume the rednecks are organized, and have a redneck-wide command structure. Urban folks still outnumber rural folks almost 4:1. This means that Armed Criminal Rednecks as a portion of the population, are going to have to be four times more common in their communities than gang bangers. Even if we assume this is true, to make the numbers break even they have further disadvantages:Then there is a matter of population density,The redneck population is spread out over large areas presenting far greater logistical challenges in terms of creating a unified force or mounting any sort of defense.

In contrast a great many folks from one gang are concentrated in a single area, making it easier to for them to muster up and project force in a concentrated manner. In addition they're surrounded by far many more civilians and just general urban clutter, which forms a great defense against potential attacks.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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?

Do rednecks flecks off spores that grow into fully formed and educated rednecks inside a few days/months?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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?

Do rednecks flecks off spores that grow into fully formed and educated rednecks inside a few days/months?

Bud Light cans.

 Jihadin wrote:
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

I hate to say it, but when we leave the Taliban will still be there. Having said that, how could you win in Afghanistan exactly? We smashed Al Qaeda there. Time to bail.

 Frazzled wrote:
Having said that, how could you win in Afghanistan exactly?

Modern educational system (that isn't targetted by suicide bombers every other day).

 Chongara wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Chongra I think you have a poor idea of just how many rednecks there are in this country, and how many of them have been involved in criminal activity that involved violence and blood shed since before the first of the modern gangs were formed. Back in the day it was moonshining, these days it's pot and "hillbilly heroin". Many of these same people grew up handling explosives in various formats illegally or otherwise, or joined the military and came back or have just been using a rifle since they could pick one up. All those militia groups that CNN likes to have panic attacks about also belong to the redneck category and being a paramilitary organization lends towards a pretty solid and functioning command structure.

Let's assume the rednecks are organized, and have a redneck-wide command structure. Urban folks still outnumber rural folks almost 4:1. This means that Armed Criminal Rednecks as a portion of the population, are going to have to be four times more common in their communities than gang bangers. Even if we assume this is true, to make the numbers break even they have further disadvantages:Then there is a matter of population density,The redneck population is spread out over large areas presenting far greater logistical challenges in terms of creating a unified force or mounting any sort of defense.

In contrast a great many folks from one gang are concentrated in a single area, making it easier to for them to muster up and project force in a concentrated manner. In addition they're surrounded by far many more civilians and just general urban clutter, which forms a great defense against potential attacks.

Dude...

Check out the movie "Winter's Bones"...

Very apt dipictation of the "gangs in the midwest".

Winter's Bone is a damn good movie. Way better intro to Jennifer Lawrence than Hunger Games. Chick is good. John Hawkes was also great in it.

That's not the midwest, though, is it? I thought it was the Ozarks.

EDIT: I am on drugs. The Ozarks, of course, are IN the midwest.

Do we count Outlaw Biker Gangs as/for rednecks? There's definitely some over lap there.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Having said that, how could you win in Afghanistan exactly?

Modern educational system (that isn't targetted by suicide bombers every other day).

YOU mean the ones where they were blowing up the schools or the ones where they were blowing up the students?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Do we count Outlaw Biker Gangs as/for rednecks? There's definitely some over lap there.

Mercenaries that could go either way.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Winter's Bone is a damn good movie. Way better intro to Jennifer Laurence than Hunger Games. Chick is good. John Hawkes was also great in it.

That's not the midwest, though, is it? I thought it was the Ozarks.

Er... Missouri... my state... practically half the state is Ozark country, which is considered "the mid-west". (why, I have no idea other than St. Louis is "The Gateway to the West").

And yes, that movie was great... you know why? I know people/family/towns that are like that... which was very trippy man.

That chick is going to have a great acting career. She even "cleaned" the squirrels correctly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:


EDIT: I am on drugs. The Ozarks, of course, are IN the midwest.

Can I have some?

I will also give rednecks the rifle advantage, but close quarter hand gun and automatic weapon fights will give the advantage back to the gangs.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Having said that, how could you win in Afghanistan exactly?

Modern educational system (that isn't targetted by suicide bombers every other day).

YOU mean the ones where they were blowing up the schools or the ones where they were blowing up the students?

Any which one that doesn't consist entirely in memorisation of a 'holy' book.

 d-usa wrote:
I will also give rednecks the rifle advantage, but close quarter hand gun and automatic weapon fights will give the advantage back to the gangs.

Depends on the flora and fauna...

If it's in the City? Gang bangers all the way...

Out in the bush? Rednecks winz...

Even in small towns and farms, gangs will win. If the rednecks burn down brush to clear up firing lanes or trap woods and place stands the gangs will have heavy losses getting there.

 d-usa wrote:
Even in small towns and farms, gangs will win. If the rednecks burn down brush to clear up firing lanes or trap woods and place stands the gangs will have heavy losses getting there.

How can you say that? You live in Oklahoma for feth sakes!

Okay... gangbangers prolly have the resources, armoury and just flat-out-balls...

But Rednecks? They'd get all creative on you... like this:

THE PUNKINATOR!

Seriously... you're going to get hurt by going up to folks who thinks of this gak all the time.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

EDIT: I am on drugs. The Ozarks, of course, are IN the midwest.

Can I have some?

For some reason I was thinking further South; like Arkansas.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey.

Depends on where you are. Through the central coast of Queensland they're fairly common in bushy areas. They'll still travel in mobs but they spread out quite a bit, and their grey hair is damn hard to spot against a backdrop of grey tree trunks.

That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.

While not wanting to dilute my island home's air of dangerous mystique, it's probably fair to point out that in general roos will actually just head for the hills when they see you coming. Or in areas where they're not being culled regularly, they'll as like as not just ignore you since you're not edible. It's mostly just if you happen to come across a particularly ornery male that you run into trouble. I would suspect that more people are hurt by having one hurtle out in front of them in the middle of the night on a dark road than by actually being attacked... a full grown roo can make a bit of a mess of your car.

 insaniak wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
As to exciting on the Roos I just mean that from what I see they tend to move in large groups across fairly open terrain, which compared to stalking an individual deer in the woods of North America isn't as "challenging" or "exciting" in the sense of locating and "hunting" the prey.

Depends on where you are. Through the central coast of Queensland they're fairly common in bushy areas. They'll still travel in mobs but they spread out quite a bit, and their grey hair is damn hard to spot against a backdrop of grey tree trunks.

That a Roo is rather more dangerous then most of the herbivores in North America does make things interesting though. A roo is also more aggressive compared to a deer from what I understand. A deer's first response is to hoof it post haste from a threat, where the roo is (again from what I understand, I haven't exactly made a study of it) more likely to beat the threat's brains in, gut it, or if you're near a body of water, drown it.

While not wanting to dilute my island home's air of dangerous mystique, it's probably fair to point out that in general roos will actually just head for the hills when they see you coming. Or in areas where they're not being culled regularly, they'll as like as not just ignore you since you're not edible. It's mostly just if you happen to come across a particularly ornery male that you run into trouble. I would suspect that more people are hurt by having one hurtle out in front of them in the middle of the night on a dark road than by actually being attacked... a full grown roo can make a bit of a mess of your car.

Makes sense, that's how deer kill people here for the most part. Course if your car's big enough we just call that fast food. Over all I think I can be satisfied hunting and shooting down under.

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Do we count Outlaw Biker Gangs as/for rednecks? There's definitely some over lap there.

Mercenaries that could go either way.

Knowing the OMC (Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs) in my area and having decent information on the bigger ones I'd say turn them over to the rednecks, most of them would be happy for an opportunity to crack "thug" or "banger" skulls as they already fight them for turf and control of drugs and the like.

I'd also not discount rednecks on armory. Rednecks are the type of people who buy HMMWVS and armored fighting vehicles surplus, automatic weapons or various "cheats" to get or make auto weapons are also fairly common in the boonies. There's also that one old redneck with a field howitzer in his garage....