Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[Art Eatman]

timmy4, to build on browneu's point, do a bit of Google search and find the date and place for a competition match of a local IPSC or IDPA club near you. You can see what we're talking about, as to rate of fire and speed in reloading.

One aimed shot per second is not unreasonable. So, from a 20-round magazine, 20 shots in twenty seconds.

With not all that much practice, a person with a semi-auto pistol can fire a round, reload and fire the next round in less than two seconds. So, three seven-round magazines is 23 or 24 seconds instead of 20. Is that significant?

I'm just trying to show you why we consider all these restrictions to be of no worthwhile value. In no way can they inhibit a determined crook or nutcase.

Edit-add: Looks like Timmy4 should browse through the thread and look for pertinent posts. Make notes and think about all that has been said. Then, if there are further questions about details of whatever sort, start a new thread.

14 pages oughta be plenty.

 

[Sam Cade]

They just ignore what doesnt fit their beliefs.

Yep. Just how the poster informs us that he will "reject" certain ideas out of hand.


......hunh. Reminds me of a Rand quote from "The Objectivist Ethics":

He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.

 

[Warp]

You've just gotta expand you mind, man! Like, there''s no reason to stay all twentieth-century in 1911 choices, unless, like, you want to, man!

15 rounds of 9mm in this one, and a trigger that'll make any Glock man jealous!

http://cdn.shootingreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/20111011-0062.jpg?84cd58[img]

So, have a successfully derailed this one yet? Was looking done anyway...[/QUOTE]

I don't want manual safeties on my defensive pistols though.

That said, I will get a 1911 some day. I couldn't have anything resembling a 'collection' without one. I'm not too old just yet, I should have time.

Dan Wessons in the ~$1,200 range caught my eye. Just can't afford yet. The dang AR platform is taking all of my gun money, and then some.

 

[BullfrogKen]

With not all that much practice, a person with a semi-auto pistol can fire a round, reload and fire the next round in less than two seconds.

Not everyone, Art.

This is a picture Oleg Volk posted here in 2008.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=352407

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/disabled8619.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1



This is Joshua B. I met this young man in 2006.

His right hand will not allow him use of it to perform a magazine change. He shot the National Tactical Invitational - a dynamic, self-defense shooting event - with a Browning Hi-Power using a 17 rd mag. He went through the shoothouses, did Force on Force with the roleplayers, did everything every other competitor did.

timmy, you should realize your support to limit magazine capacity would put guys like Joshua at even more of a disadvantage if he had to defend himself. Very often an assault on a victim involves more than one attacker. And we do not train to simply shoot one round at an attacker and wait to see if it worked before we shoot him again. We train to shoot several rounds at a threat as fast as we can.

Restricting him to 10 round magazines would mean he'd have to get out another gun if he shot all 11.

Like he's shooting here. That revolver is his back-up gun, for when he runs out of the 18 in his Browning Hi-Power or if it jams.


If you like this picture, I understand Oleg sells it as a poster. You can visit his site and purchase it.
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/disabled8619.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

 

[9MMare]

Not many, but I carry AT LEAST two.

Well I meant many 'people' carry more than one but you go! I usually have at least one if not two.

 

[timmy4]

Several people here have made some very strong arguments here, and what impresses me even more, they're backed them up with facts. I don't buy the tyranny argument. I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.) I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

HOWEVER- the argument that the ban on high capacity magazines would be ineffective because there are too many out there already, because people can reload quickly, etc. These are strong arguments, and you guys have offered numerous facts. I don't have facts to counter it. One of the things that I have to acknowledge on this subject is that everyone who argues "my side" that I have been able to find do so with a lack of statistical data, the sort of data that YOU guys have. That gives me pause.

So I want to read a little more about this. It's not like my opinion means anything in the big picture (I'm just one guy) but I might reconsider my position on this issue.

 

[9MMare]

Now, let me get political here for a moment: I predict that, in spite of the polls and much of the media supporting some of my ideas, nothing is actually going to happen. There are 4 main reasons for this:

1. The Democrats in Congress, I believe, are for the most part uncomfortable with this issue. They know their constituents are more pro-gun than Obama is, especially in rural states. They are using this issue to "get" Republicans rather than to really accomplish anything.

2. Tactically, it was a huge mistake to go with one "omnibus" bill that contains several gun control measures. While the public is strongly for ending the loophole, for instance, they are not for a new AWB ban. Having a large bill gives politicians cover that they would not have if there were several bills each dealing with a different topic.

3. Eventually, all bills have to go through the House of Representatives, which as we all know is controlled by Republicans typically more conservative than in the Senate. There is no way any gun control bill gets passed.

4. Finally, and most important: those of us who are in favor of certain gun control issues care about this topic, but we don't care as much as you guys do. Simply put, you are willing to vote for or against politicians based on this one issue as your priority. For the most part, we aren't; we have other priorities. So long as this is true, it doesn't matter even if we have a majority opinion on our side; you will still win. That is the nature of pluralism.

So cheer up. Your "side" is going to be triumphant in the long run. I don't have to like that, but I recognize it as the truth.

The Feds arent the only ones who can impose restrictions and bans. See: Illinios, see: NY.

We have to be prepared to support our beliefs in our states as well.

As a matter of fact, change is much more likely at the state level than at the fed IMO.

 

[9MMare]

I don't buy the tyranny argument. I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.) I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.


.

Just IMO, several people have made very compelling arguments supporting that argument....esp. since it's not even a matter of 'winning.' It's a matter of deterrance. Of the toll it would take and the likelihood that our military or civil forces could not be used wholesale against us.

As I wrote elsewhere, it's about how much responsibility for your own lives you are willing to take...or hand over to the govt (which doesnt really care at all about your personal safety).

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

(btw, I'm a Democrat and consider myself a liberal)

 

[Ms_Dragon]

I think it's damned quaint that Timmy thinks that low cap mags will reduce the numbers of people killed.

Rapid mag changes take 3.08 seconds when retaining the spent magazine and transferring it into a pouch attached to a belt over either the left or right buttock depending on the hand/side dominance of the operator.
This is from trigger to trigger time.

Non-mag retention (meaning the spent mag is ejected onto the ground rather than retained ) depending on whether the operator is removing the mag by hand or is using the body of the new mag to eject the spent mag takes a significantly shorter time.

These techniques can be learned to competency and then proficiency in a reasonably short amount of time.

Timmy watch this and know that all 10 round mags will do is force the operator to swap out mags more often with less than 3 seconds between mag exchanges if practicing magazine non-retention techniques.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3XCMNYMHFM

 

[9MMare]

And he's been pretty respectful.
It's not wrong to have a differing opinion..

Of course it's not wrong, so we agree on that.


OTOH, butter wouldnt melt in my mouth if I wanted to manipulate people.....head butting or even logic arent the only ways to challenge ideas and hold discussions. As a matter of fact, they're often not the most effective ways at all. (Politicians know this very well too.)

I still question his agenda but hope that we end up serving our own best interests.

 

[r1derbike]

Timmy4, nobody believes anything, until it is in your face.

Tyranny. Because it is not directly in our faces yet, should not be ruled out as a future event. May not happen tomorrow, or in our lifetime, but given the political excess and an administration overstepping its boundaries, seemingly every day, it is possible.

And if it comes to pass, we, or our kids, or their kids hopefully have an intact constitution to aid us and them to take arms against the tyrants. It is so written.

Anything is possible, therefore no compromise is possible.

The 2nd amendment. It's such a simple concept, whether one rejects it, rejects tyranny, or not, it is always there. Always. If ever a time comes that the Constitution is crumpled and burned in a white house fireplace, people will still bear arms. We don't play well with tyrannical dictators, just ask the Brits, about that. I would hope that history doesn't repeat itself within our borders, because We, the People, vs. the U.S. Government will leave the last vestige of this country, to be divided among its foreign investors.

I don't get individuals who dismiss tyranny as a noshow, ever in this country. Look worldwide, the very crux of its biscuit is being played-out in the worldly venue. It's all around us.

 

[DocCasualty]

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

I did start reading the thread, though please forgive me for not reading all 300+ posts. Also, forgive me if this has already been discussed. The basis of the entire discussion revolves around 2A. If it were not for this the entire discussion would take on an entirely different timbre. It was only because of Heller and McDonald that we finally had some SCOTUS clarification of 2A. While the opinion of the court was limited to the question it was presented with as usual, we did receive a glimpse of the majority's opinion about 2A and how the prefatory clause might be related to the entire amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia on the 2nd Amendment
In the Heller Decision

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (US Supreme Court, DC v. Heller, 2008, Syllabus, p. 1)

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

IANAL but I believe what was said there was that laws certainly can be made about gun ownership but there are indeed limits to how far they can go in limiting that ownership. I'm sure we could debate this until the cows came home, though I believe Scalia left the door wide open to suggest that modern military weapons could indeed be protected by 2A. There certainly is nothing unusual in society at large about semi-automatic rifles with 20-30 round detachable magazines or semi-automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, indeed what most of them were designed for, as they are amongst the most popular and frequently purchased amongst all firearms in the US for the last couple of decades.

I don't know where this debate is headed nationally and concede that any SCOTUS interpretation is dependent on the composition of the court, however, SCOTUS has spoken and any further decisions will have to take this court's opinion into consideration.

 

[BHP FAN]

''why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?''

Let me ask you this: why do you guys want to do away with it?

 

[Solo]

I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

Timmy4, just a quick question: did you ever read about Warren v. District of Columbia?

Let's say one of the women in the attack had a Ar-15. How many rounds should she have been allowed to load in the magazine?

 

[Ms_Dragon]

Australia became a more violent place after our gun restrictions were put into place.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

* In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
* Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
* Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

A woman in Australia now is 3 times more likely to be raped than her counterpart in America.

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that...

I don't believe we are close to that either, but there are people who think the possibility of armed rebellion and how it would be suppressed is at least worth thinking about...

Peck, M. (2012). How the US Military Would Crush a Tea Party Rebellion, November 15.

Before anybody freaks, please know that the title is unnecessarily inflammatory. However, there are some conceivable scenarios raised in the article.

The most interesting quote in that article to present point (i.e. your comment) is this...

"Laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. But if there were a rebellion, I wonder if the President would stand on legalities. Lincoln is remembered for winning the Civil War, not suspending habeus corpus."

To your point about the feasibility of resistance to armed suppression, the article also mentions this, and suggests there are reasons it wouldn't be particularly easy...

"Curiously, the authors don’t really delve the fundamental issue of American soldiers firing on American civilians..."

"Civil support in South Carolina makes counterinsurgency in Kabul look like a picnic."

And since you have a history and poli-sci background, may I ask that you review the history of the US Civil War, then consider that families today are even more broadly dispersed than at that time. How might individuals and families in (as an example) Ohio react to news of brothers/sisters/cousins/nieces/nephews/parents/children, etc. being injured or killed due to a mistaken drone strike in a war zone in Utah (as another example)?

 

[goon]

Timmy4 - you have the right to your views. It may be that a homeowner is very unlikely to ever expend thirty rounds defending home and family. Depending on the number of attackers, a dose of adrenaline, a few misses, and a failure to stop, would you agree that it is possible that you could run a ten round magazine dry?
I'd call it possible. So to be safe, you'd likely need at least fifteen to twenty rounds to almost certainly not have to reload. Once you get to that point, with the quick reloads already noted, what's the point of any restriction from anyone's point of view?

In any case, after fourteen pages, I don't think I'll say anything that hasn't been said twice already. I have appreciated the dialogue and agree with the moderators' willingness to allow you to share your opinions. I'll be out of this one from now on because it's just too busy to keep up with, but take care.

 

[va1911]

Several people here have made some very strong arguments here, and what impresses me even more, they're backed them up with facts. I don't buy the tyranny argument. I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.) I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

HOWEVER- the argument that the ban on high capacity magazines would be ineffective because there are too many out there already, because people can reload quickly, etc. These are strong arguments, and you guys have offered numerous facts. I don't have facts to counter it. One of the things that I have to acknowledge on this subject is that everyone who argues "my side" that I have been able to find do so with a lack of statistical data, the sort of data that YOU guys have. That gives me pause.

So I want to read a little more about this. It's not like my opinion means anything in the big picture (I'm just one guy) but I might reconsider my position on this issue.

This is a good thread but admittedly, I have not read the entire thing. That said, I think what gets many of us so mad is that the folks who think we shouldn't have ____ (you fill in the blank, 30 rounds, etc.) are simply stripping us of our rights because of something they are uncomfortable with. Most of the anti-gun crowd either hasn't ever shot a gun, hasn't had a good experience with it, has a phobia of guns, etc., and their arguments are completely irrational (not a barb at you specifically but more of a general comment). I am uncomfortable with someone publishing a book on exactly how to become a hit man and get away with it, and I am uncomfortable with people posting youtube videos on how to construct pipe bombs. I still accept the first amendment and understand that they are both protected speech.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you aren't going to do what you are doing timmy, and actually educate yourself on the issue, then I have no use for it. Just as I am not an expert on the US healthcare system, I do not tend to get into arguments for/against Obamacare without first having educated myself on the specific issue. Otherwise I defer to the experts (doctors, etc.).

If we had more people like you timmy, who would take the time to understand both sides of an issue and not simply react with their gut (uneducated) feelings we might be able to work on some real solutions to our violence problems. Thank you for coming here with an open mind.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Several people here have made some very strong arguments here, and what impresses me even more, they're backed them up with facts. I don't buy the tyranny argument. I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.) I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.
.
.
.
So I want to read a little more about this. It's not like my opinion means anything in the big picture (I'm just one guy) but I might reconsider my position on this issue.

Keep up with the open mind, timmy4.



Don't discount the tyranical government, though. It is the nature of the beast that such a thing both "creeps up on people" and occurs in ways which are, at the time, deemed "socially acceptable".

Don't for a moment think that it can't happen here.

There is a reason why the oath I swore (repeatedly, when I enlisted and every time I re-enlisted) was written the way it is:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

That oath is based on upholding the law, not the person.


While you're thinking about WHY that oath is worded this way, I'd invite you to review your studies on history, politics, and systems of government, most especially that of the United States of America...which we do so love to describe as the "land of the free and home of the brave".

Don't think our government can't be tyranical? Think about the plight of the black man...indeed of ANY race not considered "white" in this country for much of its history.

Still don't think out government can't be tyranical? I invite you to take a good, long bout of reading about a man known as Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Still don't think our government can't be tyranical? Take a good, close look at the reactions our nation had, and the actions it took, in response to the terrorist acts of 2001. Take a good, hard look at the USA Patriot Act and what it allows the government to do. Take a good, hard look at that actions that the government took (and the way they went about it) with respect to torturing. Take a good, close look at the TSA.

There are more examples, too.


Interesting how the U.S. Constitution starts out with the all-inclusive words "We the people"...IN HUGE FONT, NO LESS...yet it took a century to recognize the black man's rights. And ANOTHER century of oppression before those civil rights actually began to be enforced.

Turned out that "We the people" actually stood for "We, the people what be in power..." didn't it?


As for 30 round magazines and home defense...please don't tell me you subscribe to the Hollywood notion that a single bullet will not only stop any attacker, it will knock him off his feet and through a window? And please don't tell me you actually believe that every shot fired by ANYBODY, much less someone in the high-stress situation of defending his life and the life of his family, will not only his his target, but hit it in vital places which will result in stopping his attacker(s)? And please don't tell me that the only scenario you cover with respect to home defense is that of a single assailant?


More things for you to chew thoughtfully.

 

[freyasman]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread and I hope it has been educational for the OP. One of the things I find most disturbing about these kind of things is the willingness to "label" or re-name things to support one's agenda; i.e. "assault weapon"... its a rifle. "High capacity" magazine.... no, standard capacity. This sort of thing is done by people on every issue and I find it tiresome, and somewhat dis-honest; language is important to me, and I believe that words have power; we should use the correct and accurate ones when having a discussion. "Liberal" is often a derisive term here, and it shouldn't be; I'm very "liberal" in many of my beliefs and I doubt I'm the only one here who is. When I am "using my words" I strive to use them correctly....

 

[larryh1108]

And, as I always say/remind people of...it's for the fence-sitters. It doesn't matter if it's impossible to convince the individual you are conversing with. If you can thoroughly defeat their position there will be people who are listening in (or reading in), and THEY are the ones that matter. They are (often) the ones whose position and be swayed with a little knowledge and perspective.

Warp, you and I don't see eye-to-eye often but you nailed it on the head here.

I also believe there are a lot of fence sitters out there. They may not own a gun and have no wish to go buy a gun but they aren't anti-gun... yet. They are smart enough to realize that the media is slanted and has their own agenda. They are smart enough to not trust the politicians or what they read, see and hear (propoganda). They may have learned this with other agendas they feel strongly about. These are the people we need to educate, not the staunch antis. I believe Timmy is one of the fence sitters. There are millions more like him and we need all we can get on our side.

 

[Hacker15E]

One of the things that I have to acknowledge on this subject is that everyone who argues "my side" that I have been able to find do so with a lack of statistical data, the sort of data that YOU guys have. That gives me pause.

Good on you for being someone who can attempt to objectively evaluate facts and modify their opinions based on that evidence.

Regardless of where anyone's political and philosophical beliefs are, this is the cornerstone to being a critical thinking human being.

Unfortunately, we see entrenchment of beliefs far more often in society.

 

[ToraBoraBlues]

Sir, I know that I am late to this discussion, but would like to add this point to the discussion.

I took an oath not too many years ago to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

My fathers on both sides of my family have bled and some died in places like Luzon, Normandy, the Chosin Reservoir, or Hue, and patrolled miserable outposts in Europe and Asia. They did this for the safety and interests of our nation, but all ultimately to secure for everyone who can call themselves an American the God-given rights enshrined by the Constitution. I have left too many fellow soldiers in Afghanistan to believe that the rights they died to protect can be legislated away by a political hack.

 

[berettaprofessor]

One of the things that I have to acknowledge on this subject is that everyone who argues "my side" that I have been able to find do so with a lack of statistical data, the sort of data that YOU guys have. That gives me pause.

That, sir, is called an epiphany!

 

[Spats McGee]

Several people here have made some very strong arguments here, and what impresses me even more, they're backed them up with facts. I don't buy the tyranny argument.

Re: not buying the tyranny argument. Do you not believe that our government could become tyrannical?

• WWII internment of American citizens of Japanese descent
• Joseph McCarthy
• Patriot Act/warrantless searches/ roving wiretaps
• Ruby Ridge

Or do you not buy into the idea that an armed populace could take on a better-armed military?

• American Revolution
• King George III

Do you have any evidence that our government could not become tyrannical?

Remember that at the time the 2A was written, several things in recent memory would have been:
1) a tyrannical King George III;
2) declaring independence from our own government due to that tyranny;
3) having war declared upon us by one of the most powerful nations in the world;
4) actually winning that war.
In light of those, does it not seem reasonable that the Founding Fathers had "defense against tyranny" on their minds when they wrote the 2A?

I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.)

I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

My first question is: what does need have to do with it? Strictly speaking, we don't "need" to vote, we don't "need" email or the internet, and we don't "need" to be allowed to write letters to the local paper criticizing government. Strictly speaking, we "need" food, water, and shelter. But we have Rights to all of those other things.

Second, a 30-round magazine is appropriate for many situations. Unfortunately, home invasions happen. Those who own guns for HD recognize that bad stuff happens and that the reality of life is that the police rarely actually stop crimes. More often, the police cordon off the crime scene and collect evidence. I mean no slight to LEOs by that. They can't be everywhere at once. Accordingly, consider the situation of a single woman asleep, at home, when a home invasion happens. If you look at hit rates under stress, and (reasonably) assume that hit rates drop even further when one is awakened from a dead sleep, then look at the number of hits it actually takes to stop an attacker, you'll see that a 10 or even 20 round magazine may not cut it. What's more is that the good guys don't want that woman to be evenly matched against bad guys. We want her to win.