SECOND AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK …
Several pieces of anti-Second Amendment legislation have been filed in “conservative” South Carolina in advance of the 2016 session of the S.C. General Assembly.
Among them? A controversial assault weapons ban sponsored in the S.C. House by Democrat Wendell Gilliard (H. 4440) – and in the State Senate by Marlon Kimpson (S. 939). Both of those bills seek to reprise the federal government’s failed assault weapons ban – which expired in 2004.
Other bills include new background check requirements for firearm purchases (H. 4399 and S. 941), the creation of a statewide gun registry (H. 4564 and S. 943), additional training requirements for would-be firearm purchasers (S. 942), and new penalties for gun owners who fail to report their weapons as being missing or stolen.
Kimpson is sponsoring each of those pieces of legislation in the State Senate. Various Democrats in the S.C. House are sponsoring the companion bills.
The S.C. Policy Council – a think tank located next to the state capital – signaled its opposition to these bills this week.
“Law abiding citizens shouldn’t be deprived of their right to defend themselves in pursuit of the unreachable goal of disarming criminals,” the organization noted in a review of the proposed legislation. “Second, it’s worth noting that the most recent publicized mass shooting, the shooting in San Bernardino, occurred in a state where almost all of these proposed restrictions are already in place.”
We concur … in fact this website not only supports the Second Amendment, we have called for civil disobedience of any gun law (federal, state or local) infringing upon it.
Also, as we have repeatedly noted, there is a simple equation that the far left refuses to acknowledge every time it politicizes a mass shooting. That equation? More guns = less crime.
S.C. governor Nikki Haley has touted her love of guns – although her administration has been less than supportive of gun owners in practice. Haley has also angered gun rights groups by supporting so-called “ethics reform” that would silence their First Amendment rights.
85 comments
We don’t need more gun laws for law-abiding citizens.
We need laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
I definitely agree with your first sentence, Erneba!
The problem with laws that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is that they almost invariably impact the law-abiding, who are the exact ones who ARE NOT the problem. They might cause minor delay or inconvenience to the criminal, but a trip to the black market or taking time to steal one for themselves and the problem is fixed.
Yes, that is a good point, but I think some things could be done to limit the availability for criminals and the mentally ill. I don’t believe you can truly keep a gun out of anyone’s hand.
So, because we can’t be 100% effective at making sure “bad guys” don’t get guns…we should not try at all?
Get rid of all the laws and don’t try to make new ones? Would you say the same thing for murder or drugs?
We already have laws against murder, armed robbery, felonious assaults, and the like. Good people usually have no trouble obeying such laws. If the bad ones, who find it impossible to obey these laws are put away or executed (as appropriate for the crime) and kept away, crime will likely go down if for nothing other than reduced repeat offenses.
Laws prohibiting good people from going armed because the law presumes that just because you are armed and enter a bank, you won’t be able to constrain yourself from robbing it, are just ludicrous. Ditto being armed and going into a school or mall and not being able to constrain yourself from shooting at everyone you see. Most people and especially those who go to the trouble of getting a permit, will not have such issues. Such “predictive” legislation is silly and has no place in a truly free society.
I see your point but what I’m suggesting is that people who are staunchly anti-gun control…and use this argument…are coming from the point of view that b/c all criminal activity associated with firearms can’t be stopped by laws (i.e. your example of a gunman in a school) then it’s pointless to pass those laws because the bad guys will just ignore them…hence we do nothing.
That’s why I correlate murder and drugs. Those laws don’t stop people from murdering or taking drugs but should we not have them?
Hi Limbaugh! If murder is already against the law, how will passing laws against guns on campus keep the murderer out? I’m being serious, not trying to be a smartass. If someone is so depraved as to enter a school (or anywhere for that matter) and commit the most serious of crimes, I doubt the idea of violating lesser laws will matter to them. When their trial comes, murder gives a court all the latitude it should need to confine or destroy that person so that they never harm another on the outside. Additional charges and violations, if invoked at all by the prodecutors, usually wind up as “concurrent” sentences, meaning absolutely nothing.
I have no problem with tacking on additional time for a robbery, assault, or murder, when a gun is involved, but again, in murder cases, the murder charge should give the judge all he or she needs to keep the dangerous person off the street forever, or at least until they are so old and feeble they won’t be a danger to anyone else, except maybe the fellow nursing home resident they steal a Depends from.
Regarding drug laws, for the most part I equate them to Prohibition in the 20’s or 30’s. There were drunks and derelicts before the Volstead Act, during its reign, and after it was gone. All that law did was to criminalize otherwise normal and lawful activity and make criminals out of those who engaged in it. It also made crooked cops, judges, and politicians, a nice living as well as bolstering and enriching organized crime. The exact same thing can be said about current drug laws. I do admit that things like meth should be illegal and severe penalties should apply fue to the high toxicity of the manufacturing operation
Need to be drug tested, mental evaluation and at least a ten year background check.
Good luck with all that.
This chart shows all you need to know about “assault rifles” and gun control: http://s7.postimg.org/wanci2zpn/chart.jpg
I built the chart from FBI data.
really nice presentation, i’m guessing that ain’t your first chart
I have a highly intelligent heavily degreed friend who simply refused to accept the truth so I had to put it in the simplest forms possible. I have more than a little experience making complicated things simple for simpletons, most of whom are very senior officers. Actually, that isn’t completely true most of the general officers I’ve ever spoken to are highly intelligent and grasp these kinds of concepts readily. Their staffs on the other hand…
Assault rifles have no place in an allegedly civil society. Owners would be better served with a stronger Viagra prescription.
Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the discussion.
An “assault rifle,” however one chooses to define it, is basically just that — a semi-automatic or automatic weapon meant to assault and kill the enemy. There is no need to be overly technical about it. And the notion of “law abiding,” below, doesn’t make much sense, as weapons stolen from law-abiding citizens are used to commit crimes. Consider also how many law-abiding citizens commit crimes of passion, leave firearms in reach of children, who then shoot themselves and others, and so on. People have somehow managed to be shot by their own dogs.
And yet rifles of all types are less likely to be used in a murder than a hand or foot. Did you even look at the data? Didn’t think so. You are four times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with any type of rifle.
That’s funny, I’ve never seen someone kill 20+ people at a mall or school with just their hands and feet.
No, but it’s been done with pistols, bombs and machetes many times. Most of the multiple murders committed are committed with hand guns though bombs are generally far deadlier.
you know what would prevent killing 20 people at a mall in a mass shooting? if the 21st person had a gun of their own and returned fire at the shooter
Assuming they knew how to use the gun have been properly trained that is correct.
Otherwise I see a high potential for a lot of collateral damage.
Funny that it hadn’t happened yet (all that collateral damage) yet armed citizens stop crimes every day.
Probably more cause them every day.
Ever been to Chicago?
And yet for some reason I’ve never heard of a mass killing involving one person beating a crowd of people to death. Isn’t this the real issue? Please tell me people on this board are intelligent enough to see this.
Late to the party, read below. Never heard of mass a murderer beating people to death? Ted Bundy ring a bell?
Did they ever do 25 people at the same time?
. . . .?
What’s your point Matt? Kehoe blew up a school and killed 45 – no guns (at the school, he did kill one with a rifle at home) . Tim McVeigh killed 169 – no guns.
It should be obvious. Unfettered access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons greatly increases the likelihood of a mass atrocity occurring. Sure there are other ways to kill a lot of people in a short time like with explosives. But, I don’t really see how that’s relevant to this topic. That is the classic, “well I can’t control the situation all the time so I may as well not attempt it you can control it at all” train of thought. In any country without such a severe gun fetish as ours this entire discussion would be laughable.
“..Unfettered access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons greatly increases…”
Please cite all the crimes committed with “automatic weapons”. “Unfettered access”?!? Go over to Academy Sports today and buy a shotgun or a pistol and see just how unfettered it is. Criminals by default ignore all laws, why do you think more law would equal less crime? Here’s a couple of thoughts, let’s send the vast majority of illegals home, that’d cause a thirty percent drop in crime right there, then let’s actually enforce, ruthlessly, the laws we have.
There’s no understanding serial killers or mass murderers ;big difference,but one seems to lead to another.Serial murders peaked in the 1980’s;Bundy and Dennis Rader,aka BTK,killed their first victims in January of 1974.Why? Who knows…
Well if you look up the laws that have been passed it’s over features not the action of the weapon. I really wonder about that because of the way things are used anything can be an assault weapon.
The whole thing with assault rifle started over AR. Which actually stands for Armorlite. The first manufacture of that firearm not assault rifle.
Then over the concept of law abiding which doesn’t seem to make any sense to you. If the weapons are stolen how are they technically at fault when they purchased they legally.
With children getting their hands and firearms one they were never shown guns or talked about firearms of what you do when you find one. Or if one of your friends pulls one out of the backpack. Have you talk to your children about this probably not. Do you actually know what’s in peoples houses?
With a couple of the stories that I found a couple of them were shotguns which have a known problem. Sharp jolts can actually cause the firing pin the drop without trigger being pulled. When there is a round in the chamber it can go off even with the safety on. That’s why law-enforcement does not have one in their chamber when driving around in their vehicle.
Oh please explain how many people have done crazy things with inanimate objects vehicles weapons of any kind. If you haven’t realized people are generally dangerous.
But also depending on your states you can legally own a flamethrower 37 mm grenade launcher exploding target powder parts kits. All with no background check delivered right to your home.
I’ll start with your last points and work backwards.
Yes, you can own a grenade launcher but you can’t own the grenade ammunition, it’s legally a destructive device and hence disallowed under NFA ’34 and the GCA of ’68, ditto with the flame thrower. The exploding target kits are sold as a component and require the addition of a separate ingredient, hence they are legal. They do explode mildly producing a cloud of water vapor. I can create far more lethal explosives from ingredients in most garages.
There have been any number of voluntary recalls of firearms through out history, like any man made device, they are subject to failed designs and failed execution (remember the Corvair?)
The NRA’s Eddie Eagle Program does an excellent job with firearm safety and a form of it should be mandatory in all schools. That said, parents are the first line of education and if they’re uncomfortable or incapable, there are a number of programs they can avail themselves of, many free of charge.
AR is short for Armalite Rifle. Their first product was a bolt action .22 hornet survival rifle.
Well let’s start off with the grenade launcher when you actually have a class three dealers license and a explosivesdemolitions license can you can actually get the rounds for it and then you can actually go and get a 40 mm grenade launcher. Instead of the 37 mm which technically can shoot flares and smoke out of.
Have you ever wondered how people own tanks that fire artillery pieces that are modern that fire. Even the older stuff is still just as lethal that you can own that fire. Yes there is a lot of nonsense with it of import tax stamp tax licensing etc. etc.
Now it’s going to flamethrowers state not federal law that deals with those. Might want to go look on Amazon you can go get one for 350 bucks. How that is done is because it is not a firearm and it is not an explosive device. Yes most of them are propane not straight gasoline mixed with Gelatin. I also know a lot of fire departments that use them for training of setting cars on fire.
Now going into tannerit which is exploding target it’s a powder you can buy it over the Internet no background check no nothing. You may want to YouTube 50 pounds of Tennerit in a car. Oh for future reference you may not want to put out what you can make in your garage. It’s only mixing two different powders and equal amount a shooting it a running electric current through it. Plus trying to ship it together would be a little difficult.
Trying to push that in school one that would not be doable because she would have so much pushback from the anti-gun groups. Second of all that’s parents responsibility not the schools. Why if you’re too lazy to show your kids or explain to your children about firearms and they kill themselves or get killed by someone else that’s The parents fault. Or the push a distorted view of firearms the child has no idea what to do.
A.R. stand for Armorlite not Armorlite rifle go look at the original design plans. That was the AR 10 in a 7.62 millietre not the Ar5 in 22 caliber. Remember we’re talking about this so-called assault weapon. Not what the first weapon they produced. The first design failed testing of the ar10. They were the original manufacturers/designer they license it off to colt. Which in turn made the rifle for the military of what used today. Yes they’re in different designs different configurations and they’re also made by multiple manufacturers for civilian use and also the military.
Now it has been twisted be the media of assault rifle. You never know what the actual weapon is because they twisted it so much to push an agenda. Basically they call whatever they want people that believe the misinformation.
Yes there have been recalls on some firearms but do you also been firearms particularly Remington. With hiding the information from the public and what has come out in the court cases have proven them to be liable. You do realize the Corvair is a vehicle not a gun that’s what I’m talking about.
But you don’t want to going to the laws that have been passed over features not the action of the weapon. Cause you seem to have some issue with the classification of the action of the firearm. Now I have to explain features of Bayonet bayonet lugs grenade launchers flash suppressor compensator muzzle brake pistol grip and detachable magazine. Which does not change the action of the firearm. No matter which actions you want to choose from. Oh and firearms manufacturers are going around these stupid laws. Please go research the New York State compliant A.R. 15. Still holds 30 round magazine. Remember they rammed it through at night and had to change it at night again because they screwed up.
Seen the plans, had the good fortune to meet Mr.Stoner years ago. The AR 5 in. 22 Hornet predates the AR 10 by five years.
How many people do you know with a class 3 license? I’m fairly involved in shooting and I know personally all of two.
Tannerite is one of those things that makes me wonder about people but you’d need a big pile of it to really do damage (on the scale of Oklahoma City) – fertilizer and fuel oil pound for pound has a bigger punch.
Very complicated issues, don’t think I can recall a cannon owner committing any crimes though.
I know if six people that have a class three dealers license I know one person that has that license and the explosives/demolition’s license. But they’re not in one state they’re all over the United States most them got their licenses before 1991. I’ll be meeting them at machine gun shoots general acquaintances ect.
Most of them are actual dealers gun stores that do it for a living. The amount of time and money to do it is extension. A couple own other types of businesses.
But I meet people that own firing tanks cannons and mortars artillery pieces Gatling gun’s of the old crank style not the modern ones. They are out there that are modern but they’re so expensive to buy very expensive the shoot.
Plus when was the last time a fully automatic or burst fire weapon was used in a crime. Only thing I can remember is to 44 minute shooting Waco and Ruby ridge. They did not get those weapons legally or convert them legally.
But most of the time it comes down to states laws because they’re all over the map on what you can and cannot get. But if I’m not mistaken as it is California’s ninth mass shooting with all their gun control? Just like Colorado The third. Just like I said before people are the problem. That’s kind of a tough problem to fix if it could be.
But like I said AR 5 is not considered an assault weapon by The so-call gun control laws that’s what the conversation is about. Not the first weapon they produced that weapon may have had Armorlite rifle on it I have never seen it. What became the A.R. 15 the M-16 M-16 A1 A2 the M-4 ect. Which is Armorlite nothing to do with rifle hence the AR 10 ar 15 when it was produced. Which is more of an internal specification or production sheet then what the media calls it.
I tried to make a very compelling case but most people don’t do their research on it. They just listen to the media what they say and how they say it and what questions they ask.
Like people talking about military assault weapons just because they look like it doesn’t mean they are. Like I have to say please watch The loophole loophole On YouTube.
Okay, if we include dealers, the number of people I know the license grows exponentially. Don’t do the machine gun shoots although I hear they are a lot of fun. I have 30 years of doing it for free so it doesn’t hold the same fascination for me. If you have been to an IPSC match, 3 gun match or shot sporting clays here in South Carolina we have probably crossed paths . Most of the people who opine eloquently on gun control have no idea at all what they’re talking about.
Oh I tried to debate the issues in a proper context and understanding of the laws on the books to the laws that are being proposed.
But the people to just scream out names and don’t actually research what I type are the ones with an actual problem or what the laws are. With what you actually can own in the United States of America. Plus people are the general problem for crime violence etc. is people but no we never brings it up.
But I one of those few people that don’t shoot clays. I watch people shoot clays I’ve seen people shoot clays with the 22 which is awesome. I’ve been to many different events all over the United States. I haven’t really done too much lately in the last two years.
But what really should look at is Seattle has now implemented a $25 tax on gun sales and 2 to 3 Per round sold. To offset the cost of gun violence so the law-abiding citizens have to pay not the criminals that do it. Yes this recently went to court.
How long till this gets imposed in your state? Or the nonsense from New York or the nonsense from Connecticut or the nonsense from California New Jersey Colorado Illinois Maryland. Have those laws that the past stop gun crime it won’t stop it all be the first to say it won’t but what has it done.
One group you may want to look at just because I thought it was crazy when I first heard about it. Knife rights under concept of the Second Amendment is arms that’s all arms not just firearms.
What is it with you lefties always trying to tie everything to sexual dysfunction? That says more about you than it does about anyone else. Deviant.
upon researching your figures, there is no question in my mind your statistics are correct but in researching the gun violence drop, it started trending down in 1993 well before the personal gun build up we have seen over the last decade, though your figures are true, they show no simple correlation.
I’m sorry, where did I imply there was? That said, despite the “proliferation” of firearms, particularly the “little black rifle”, the downward trend continues.
While I understand the fascination with the AR type rifles, I don’t own one. My ’03 Springfield’s effective range is almost double that of an AR, as is my M1A. The real point to my chart is to show the fallacy of outlawing ARs or AKs and expecting a huge change in the murder rate. Politicians go after them because they “look dangerous” rather than based on any real analysis of the data.
i was speaking more to your comment about simpletons, and to dispute there is a simple correlation to gun ownership and gun violence declining, drill down a little deeper and you will find that suicide rates and rates of domestic gun violence toward women are on the uptick. lets just face another fact, other than bombs assault rifles are the weapon of choice for mass murderers and terrorist.
Done both, suicides are not germane. Japan has the highest suicide rates in the world and almost no private ownership. Switzerland has near universal ownership, a higher suicide rate than the US but most choose other means.
actually we look pretty good world wide for suicide rates, but they are germane because the FBI has those factored into your graph.
I factored them out.
at the risk of seeming pedantic, this is the first you have mentioned it.
The chart is titled “murders”!?! Suicides would triple the numbers 30k+- vice 11k+-.
duh, if you chambered an ar with the 06 round, they would loose their fascination by round 2 if they could hold on to it for two shots, as far as the ak goes, it is a tribute to simplicity and durability but other than spaying and praying, it is pretty much a piece of shit.
Ever fire a Fn Fal?
no, i did shoot an m1 carbine full auto, call me a pussy but that was enough for me
The Fn is way overkill.
if a man or woman is fighting for me and my country, there is no such thing as overkill, give them anything to get the job done but i do believe the is such a thing as overkill as to what civilians should be able to own.
M1 carbine is semi auto only. The M2 is select fire.
it was an m2 then, had a folding stock and shoots 30 cal. bullets that look like a pistol round
That’s it. Folding stock M2 is fairly rare.
WWII vet gave it to his son and he let me shoot it.
I have an M1A because I can’t afford a FN/FAL…
Great reply Colonel. You have me beat. I always wondered why I couldn’t whip the” old man”. Tell ya a good story latter, about a fullbird.
Carried an M16A2 and an M4. Both were reliable, accurate and very easy to shoot. However, my M1A shoots a .308 with not much more recoil and with greater accuracy, range and impact effect.
308 probably has the most sniper kills of any calibre to date
7.62×54 (7.62R) has that distinction. (.308 is 7.62×51) The rimmed 7.62 had been around more than 70 years longer than the .308 and is what the Russians/Soviets/Russians use, sell and give away to their “friends”.
OK, OK, i was only thinking about american snipers, and the bravest of all of them in my opinion was John Roland Burke, though you would have to have read Carlos Hathcock’s book to know about him.
Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 in 30.06 (and a Browning M2). Chris Kyle used a M11 in .308 on occasion but preferred a custom barreled M21 rifle in .300 Winchester magnum.
hathcock, used the ma duece for some long range shots
M2 = Ma Duece = M2 HBMG (Heavy Barrel Machine Gun) = Browning Machine Gun, Cal. .50, M2, HB, Flexible.
One of John Browning’s greatest inventions.
I think one woman Soviet sniper in WWII is credited with slightly over 600 dead Nazis by herself, using a scoped sniper version of the Mosin with that rimmed round..
How many times in the past decade have you suckers panicked and run out to buy up all of the available ammunition in the distribution channels whenever someone frightens you into believing that the government, or Obama, is going to take away guns. Was it three or was it four times? Just this past summer we had half the country carrying on about Jade Helm 15 and some ridiculous idea that guns would be confiscated in Texas.
You guys aren’t tough or smart. You are being played.
I do not fear legislation that strengthens background checks or penalties for persons who are careless about their gun ownership.
I lived through the Clinton magazine/weapon ban (1994-2004). This taught me to never underestimate the stupidity of our elected officials with regard to such things as their stupidity is indeed boundless. For that reason, I wouldn’t knock anyone for stocking up with enough ammo to last them quite a few years in times of scarcity.
I just ordered 1100 rds of 10mm. Eventually,it will be used in practice and if things get tight, I take comfort in knowing it is there.
Then you should probably re-read the article. It specifically mentions creating a registry of gun owners. We all know that in order to confiscate guns, first the government needs to know where they are and who has them. Sounds like you are the one being played here, through your own ignorance.
I really wish South Carolina politicians that want to push this law. Would look at New York State which passed it and would look at Connecticut which also passed it.
The registration numbers in both states were incredibly low for so-called assault weapon. Gun crime is up 12% two years after the passage of just law in New York City.
I really have to hand it to you guys. I’ve been on a lot of comment boards and have seen some of the back and forth, name calling, and erroneous “facts” given by those that know nothing about which they speak. This is, without a doubt the most thoughtful discussion of facts I’ve seen in a long, long time and you all need to give yourselves credit for a very reasonable discussion, kudos!
Kimpson and Gilliard both know that their bills aren’t going anywhere. After getting squelched, they can turn to their good citizens in the community and say that they’ve done their best, but look who opposes “us”. They waist good oxygen and add to the argument for not getting anything done during the legislative session.
Haley’s administration “has been less than supportive of gun owners in practice” is not a whole truth: Someone in law enforcement that is charged with domestic violence would have had their guns taken BEFORE she signed bill for current state law because it has been federal law that requires the same. A person in the National Guard “can be considered an officer of the peace” by state law. Bottom line… it depends on who you are.
Haley’s “support” of the 2nd Amendment has been a joke. It has consisted of her having pics taken of her with guns at the FN facility in NE Richland or with one she got for Christmas (“look at me!”). She did nothing to drum up support for pro-gun bills that have been in play during her occupation of the Governor’s mansion. Yes, she did sign the few that have crossed her desk after the Legislature passed them, but piss little to help get them passed. It would be nice to see her lend some support and enthusiasm toward passing the House version of Constitutional Carry, or perhaps elimination of 99% of the statutory created and enforced Gun Free Zones, but she really only wants to mug and photo-op with guns, NOT support the 2nd Amendment in any real or meaningful way.
When U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles put the no prison plea deal for Sheriff
James Metts before Judge Terry Wooten, the judge essentially looked down
from the bench and said, “Guess again.” In a stinging and deserved
rebuke, Wooten rejected the plea deal that was foolish on its face,
undermining respect for the law and encouraging the belief that certain
individuals are above it. When it came to sentencing Metts, Judge Wooten
made us proud. And U.S. Attorney Nettles made us cringe.
Finally South Carolina trying to do something progressive. By the way there’s no Second Amendment right to have an assault rifle. You might want to bone up on Second Amendment case law. By the way since I know you have children I bet your opinion will change if one of them were gunned down. This is one of the worst articles I’ve seen.
Did you torture frogs as a child? You seem to have missed your fourth level Erickson achievement.
Let’s go back to basics. Would anyone please tell me which provisions in the aforementioned bills are objectionable. I can honestly say I have not yet read the proposed legislation. However, as described in the article by the author, I do not understand why any of the provisions would be controversial. Can anyone enlighten me?
Ask yourself, if a man with a gun tries kill your best friend, could you defend him with your fists? No, you would be dead and would not be able to write this tripe, unless your friend stepped in. In which case, who is the coward, the murderer or you? Would you be able to recognize your cowardice? Pacifists are merely hiding in the corner of their imaginary world, hoping nothing will happen, or worse, oblivious to the potential threat.
Not a pacifist. I guess you like to make an assumptions. I noticed you created a tangent. Was that to avoid answering my question? If I were the type who liked to make assumptions, I would assume the answer to that question is yes and that you have no cogent answer.
Sorry, I thought you wanted a conversation. The answer to your question is that the bills contain assumptions that they would work, which they cannot and have been proven not to work in other states.
Okay.
Such as . . .?
Anyone opposed to citizens having the right to own a gun can stand behind me when these mass murderers start shooting because I will be shooting back!!!!
Well said. Cowards ALWAYS hide behind women.