Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Abatis]

Why do I have to cite the SCOTUS?

Because they the part of government that has the power to interpret and declare what the law is and apply the Constitution and its principles to operations of the Legislative and Executive branches.

It's a group of men and women with an opinion. The only difference is they get to put it into law, I don't.

Correct.

I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd.

No.

The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any legal manner, shape or form. The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.

The authority to call-up, organize and command the citizens as militia is enumerated in the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation.

That Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for calling forth the Militia . . . and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, means nobody else can decree who among the citizenry is obligated to serve in the militia, or how enrollment will occur, or call-up the militia into service, or set the structure of militia organization and command, or declare how the militia is armed and what kinds of arms are appropriate for service, or to establish the regimen of training for the militia.

Legally, the 2ndA has no action or effect regarding militia; there is no right to form militia recognized in the 2ndA for anyone (the people or a state); militia formation is exclusively a power conferred to the federal government (for as long as he Constitution is in force).

Otherwise, why mention militia at all.

The first half of the 2ndA, the "declaratory clause" is a statement of principle. It only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a dangerous standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?

Actually, the people possess the right to keep and bear arms even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there. I do not point to, or refer to the 2ndA for my right to arms because the right to arms is not granted, given created or established by the 2ndA, which means the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution to exist.

The right to arms exists and is possessed by the citizen because "We the People" did not grant any power to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. To put it another way, all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given -- and now we are back to the principle of inherent, pre-existing rights.

.

 

[Abatis]

It's not a civil liberty. And pre 1400 years ago? Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?

The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years. That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.

The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "the elementary books of public right." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.

The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer. A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.

 

[Abatis]

If it locked away forever, then why have the second at all?

Yes, exactly! Because of the novel form and structure of the Constitution -- that the government only has the specific, limited powers granted to it by the people and no others, and all powers that were not conferred by the people were retained by the people (as rights), there was great disagreement over adding a bill of rights after the Constitution was ratified.

The Federalists believed a bill of rights to be dangerous and absurd, they argued the proposed bill of rights would:

"contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"? (Federalist 84)​

Of course in the end the Federalists "lost" the argument and we have a Bill of Rights and exactly like they warned, the exact arguments they claimed would threaten our rights are being used to attack our rights . . . I'm pointing to you and your fellow anti-gunners and your arguments.

That being said, there is a problem with your 'inherent' rights. Who gets to decide what one is? I like raping and pillaging. That is my inherent right.

The concept of inherent rights form the foundational principles of the United States and have been fully explained and have stood for centuries (John Locke and Algernon Sidney primarily). Deviations and violations can be easily identified by those who know what the doctrine is; it is not difficult or complicated.

That being said. You are right of course. No state will ever repeal the second or be on board with such an idea.

Correct, I just take offense to people on the anti-gun rights side pointing to the amendment process, that simply because an amendment could be written that would rescind the 2nd Amendment, that somehow their arguments are afforded legitimacy.

.

 

[Abatis]

So you quote three justices who gave their opinion. And that is all it is. An opinion.

Do you really not understand how any of this works or is it you just choose to refuse to accept how it works?

You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion.

Only the majority opinion has the force of law.
Dissenting, contrarian opinions have no weight.
That doesn't mean it is wrong to take note of them, to understand opposing arguments, it means that you should not pretend that they repesent what the law is.

Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.

There has been a shitton of lefist, anti-gun rights stupidity posed in this thread; it would become a full time job if someone tried to rebut it . . .

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong...the problem is the democrat party attacking the police to the point they can't, or won't, do their jobs for fear of persecution, and the democrat party releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again......

We don't have a gun problem, no matter the type, we have a political party, the democrat party, that feeds off of the violence they create by attacking the police and releasing violent criminals....

If they would stop releasing gun offenders, with multiple gun felonies, over and over again, our gun violence issues would drop by about 95%.....

Our gun violence is fueled by a tiny number of violent offenders in tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities, and these individuals commit almost 95% of all gun violence....and yet democrat party prosecutors and judges keep releasing them....

You are fixated on guns......that isn't the problem....releasing violent criminals is the problem.

The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.

 

[Dr Grump]

This is why we have gun violence problems in democrat party controlled cities....

Man fired gun into restaurant ceiling while on electronic monitoring for more than 27 felonies including home invasion, carjacking, and kidnapping: prosecutors​

-----
Joshua Noah was supposed to be on electronic monitoring for two separate felony cases. He is charged with 27 felony counts in one case, including home invasion, kidnapping, carjacking, armed robbery, residential burglary, aggravated battery, and more. Charges in the other case include Class X armed violence, narcotics, and gun counts.
-----

A violent home invasion and kidnapping​

In 2020, prosecutors said Noah and two other armed men broke into a Riverside family’s home, beat a man who owed them drug money, and dumped him in an alley on the 4300 block of West 47th Street in Chicago. While they were in the house, the crew allegedly pistol-whipped the man’s mother and threatened the family.

A judge allowed him to go home on electronic monitoring by posting a $15,000 bail deposit. Details about the other felony case were not immediately available.

Man fired gun into restaurant ceiling while on electronic monitoring for more than 27 felonies including home invasion, carjacking, and kidnapping: prosecutors

Joshua Noah is accused of firing a gun into a restaurant ceiling and threatening patrons — while on electronic monitoring for more than 30 felonies, including home invasion, carjacking, kidnapping, armed robbery, residential burglary, armed violence, and gun charges.

cwbchicago.com

So......again, it isn't the gun, it isn't normal people who own guns....the problem is the democrat party prosecutors and judges who keep releasing monsters like this back into primarily black neighborhoods .........

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's politicise it. The bell tower shooting back in the 60s was in Texas. That bastion of dems.

List of mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Doesn't seem dem or GoP specific to me.

 

[Dr Grump]

Contradict yourself much?

lol - I don't need a gun, Doctor. I have chemical and biological weapons too. I can do way more damage with those than with a peashooter.

Seriously, there is an enormous spectrum of weaponry from 20 hz to 20 khz, and for some reason the Democrats are focusing "only" on the weapon that sits at exactly 7.62 khz. Why is that?

Have you forgotten about the nail bombs the Tsarnaev brothers used? Or the airplanes? I mean, none of those guys had AR-15's. They either went to the airport or they went to Edmund Scientific

No, the type of weapon is not the issue. Control is the issue. Registration is the issue. Compliance is the issue

The Tsarnaev brothers and 9/11 were exceptions, not the rule. More than 95% of mass killings involve guns.
Registration - in the US at least - is totally pointless.

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually, the people possess the right to keep and bear arms even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there. I do not point to, or refer to the 2ndA for my right to arms because the right to arms is not granted, given created or established by the 2ndA, which means the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution to exist.

The right to arms exists and is possessed by the citizen because "We the People" did not grant any power to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. To put it another way, all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given -- and now we are back to the principle of inherent, pre-existing rights.

.

Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby) why even have the 2nd at all?

 

[Dr Grump]

The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years. That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.

The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "the elementary books of public right." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.

The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer. A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.

ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.

At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them. They love the power of them. Those auditors on YouTube love looking like big men on campus walking down the street with their peashooter strapped to their side. Or their semi auto. There is a reason the police stop and talk to them. It is not considered normal, civilised behaviour. I see the look on their faces. They feel big. Brave. Tough even. THAT is the reason you like your guns.

 

[Dr Grump]

Correct, I just take offense to people on the anti-gun rights side pointing to the amendment process, that simply because an amendment could be written that would rescind the 2nd Amendment, that somehow their arguments are afforded legitimacy.

.

I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you really not understand how any of this works or is it you just choose to refuse to accept how it works?
Only the majority opinion has the force of law.
Dissenting, contrarian opinions have no weight.
That doesn't mean it is wrong to take note of them, to understand opposing arguments, it means that you should not pretend that they repesent what the law is.

There has been a shitton of lefist, anti-gun rights stupidity posed in this thread; it would become a full time job if someone tried to rebut it . . .

And yet if you discuss Roe vs Wade....

 

[Abatis]

Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby) why even have the 2nd at all?

Again, absolutely correct, the 2nd is not needed for the right to exist; all the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never given.

 

[Abatis]

ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on.

And yet it hasn't. Are you arguing humanity has evolved past government always sliding to authoritarianism and brutality, and humans have abandoned the opposing force, the desire of people to live free?

Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does.

That is the most compelling reason for an armed citizenry.

Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute,

Well, the history lesson I gave you was only in rebuttal to your ignroance of the concept of an armed citizenry throughout thousands of years of history.

So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry.

Yes, I do.

There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.

What was the mark of a Slave? Being disarmed and rendered harmless to those in authority.

Rep. George A. Yeaman (Unionist, Kentucky) clearly stated this fact during the ratification debates of the 14th Amendment:

"Let proclamations be withdrawn, let statutes be repealed, let our armies be defeated, let the South achieve its independence, yet come out of the war with an army of slaves made freemen for their service, who have been contracted with, been armed and drilled, and have seen the force of combination. Their personal status is enhanced . . . They will not be returned to slavery."​

.

 

[Abatis]

I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.

How many amendments have rescinded an original, fundamental right, enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

And yet if you discuss Roe vs Wade....

Do you have a working understanding of how the right to abortion was recognized and deemed constitutionally protected in Roe v Wade?

Did Roe v Wade create or grant the right to abortion, or did the SCOTUS declare the right to be covered under a right that already existed and that states were forbidden to enforce laws restricting the right?

I would argue you haven't a damn clue about Roe v Wade or Griswold v CT which recognized the right to privacy by way of "penumbral rights" from which the right to abortion is said to reside . . .

I have no problem discussing Roe v Wade.
I enjoy discussing Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade is a quagmire for anti-gun leftists, it will be YOU who will be running away from discussing it.

Here's a little taste for you . . .

The most effective path to extinguish the right to abortion (and LGBTQ+ rights), is to rescind or severely restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

If that was to occur, the theory of "penumbral rights" is proven to be a false contrivance.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.

no it has never had a gun problem it has a democrat problem

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I disagree. It is a legitimate argument. One amendment was added (13th) and one repealed (18th). Can the 2nd be repealed? Absolutely. There is a mechanism in place to make it so. Will it ever be repealed? Doubtful.

we've added 14 amendment since the formation of this country and we've only had one repealed
Do you know the history of the 27th amendment?
Commonly known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was actually the second of 12 amendments proposed by the first Congress in 1789 (10 of these would be ratified and become the Bill of Rights). Absent a time period for ratification by the states, the expiration of which would render the amendment inoperable, it remained dormant for almost 80 years after only six states voted for ratification (Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia). In 1873 Ohio ratified the amendment as an expression of dissatisfaction with then-current attempts by Congress to increase the salaries of its members. The amendment once again lay dormant, but in 1978 another state, Wyoming, ratified it. In 1982, after an undergraduate research paper written by Gregory Watson, then a student at the University of Texas in Austin, became the foundation for a movement to curtail political corruption by ratifying the amendment, efforts picked up steam. (Watson had received a “C” for the paper, his professor saying that the argument that the amendment was still pending was not convincing.) By May 5, 1992, the requisite 38 states had ratified the amendment (North Carolina had re-ratified it in 1989), and it was certified by the archivist of the United States as the Twenty-seventh Amendment on May 18, 1992, more than 202 years after its original proposal.

Twenty-seventh Amendment | Ratification, Congressional Pay, Limitations

Twenty-seventh Amendment, amendment (1992) to the Constitution of the United States that required any change to the rate of compensation for members of the U.S. Congress to take effect only after the subsequent election in the House of Representatives. Commonly known as the Congressional

www.britannica.com

 

[2aguy]

ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.

At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them. They love the power of them. Those auditors on YouTube love looking like big men on campus walking down the street with their peashooter strapped to their side. Or their semi auto. There is a reason the police stop and talk to them. It is not considered normal, civilised behaviour. I see the look on their faces. They feel big. Brave. Tough even. THAT is the reason you like your guns.

Jim Jeffries? An unfunny comedian is your go to source?

Americans own and carry guns for self defense, sport, hunting, collecting…….and to prevent our fascist democrats from implementing their dreams of concentration camps for their enemies….

 

[Open Bolt]

The National Guard is militia based, it's based around the Militia. When called up into federal service it is a part of the US military. But then the militia has been like this for 200+ years.

The militia has never been part of the US Army.

No, you're wrong about it's status in the US military making it not the militia.

That is incorrect. The Framers intended clearly that the militia be present in order to render a standing army unnecessary as much as possible.

To make a standing army count as the militia is very clearly contrary to the intention of the Framers.

Further, the Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. There is no role for the militia outside US borders.

Further yet, militiamen have the right to take their military weapons home with them. Guardsmen are not allowed to do this.

Read the Dick Act.

Dubuque Telegraph-Herald - Google News Archive Search

news.google.com

Here's an article from 1903. Says: "an enactment which reorganizes the militia"
It has the "organized militia" and "unorganized militia". You might disagree with this, but it is what it is.

What it isn't, is any sort of militia in the eyes of the US Constitution.

They can claim whatever they want to claim, but it doesn't make it so.

Crazy people with guns are far more effective killers than crazy people without guns.

Their record of killing people with bombs and of killing people with high speed trucks says differently.

So, it is pretty clear that in 1792 and before, the RBA acts were about the defense of the common unit, rather than individual self defense.

It doesn't matter what specific reason the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for. It still protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part where people have guns for the private defense of their homes.

Note, many things were not protected. They didn't protect hunting. Why?

Because the right to keep and bear arms is about the militia and private self defense, and is not about hunting.

What was the point of protecting hunting?

It's actually a nice idea. But the ancient right didn't do that. So this is what we are left with.

The US Constitution is about the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They saw a problem with the English crown taking away the ability of colonists to defend themselves, so they took this power away from the government. They didn't need to take the power to prevent individual self defense because it wasn't an issue in those days.

Actually it was an issue a now and then. That is why the right also covers people having guns to privately defend their homes.

 

[Open Bolt]

The general militia principle, that the mass of armed citizens, armed without special permission of government, fulfill a dual role of workers and then when needed, the defensive force of a nation, goes back further than 1400 years. That debate over the civic virtue of an armed citizenry goes back to Aristotle and Plato.
The rationale of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically, rests on the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, Machiavelli, Cato's Letters, the English Whigs, Rousseau, Burgh, Montesquieu, Beccaria and many others. These writings Jefferson called, "the elementary books of public right." These writers attacked authoritarian rule, standing armies and vindicated the use of armed force to oppose tyranny and defend life.
The rationale backing the anti-gun rights side are found in the writings of Plato, Bodin, Hobbes and Filmer. A central feature of those philosophies was a disarmed citizenry obeying the dictates of men whose authority was beyond question; the authoritarian ideals those writers advocated were disdained and dismissed by the founding fathers.

I count Hobbes on the gun rights side. If my memory is correct, Leviathan allowed people self defense whenever an agent of the government was not around to protect them.

Legally, the 2ndA has no action or effect regarding militia; there is no right to form militia recognized in the 2ndA for anyone (the people or a state); militia formation is exclusively a power conferred to the federal government (for as long as he Constitution is in force).

The first half of the 2ndA, the "declaratory clause" is a statement of principle. It only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a dangerous standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

I see the statement that the militia is necessary as being a legal requirement that the government always have a militia in good working order.

 

[Open Bolt]

The US has ALWAYS had a gun problem.

I don't see any problem.

The Tsarnaev brothers and 9/11 were exceptions, not the rule. More than 95% of mass killings involve guns.

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with bombs.

Again, if the right already exists (it doesn't BTW, only to the pro-gun lobby)

Our rights do exist. But this is the primary reason why people need to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom, and they even say that our freedom doesn't exist.

Republicans protect America from progressives.

ALL, ancient history. Humanity has moved on. Now, if the US didn't have a professional, standing armed forces, sure. However, it does. Times have changed. Interesting that you keep on going back in history to make your point. We are now in the 21st century. In fact, with nukes, your point(s) are mute, in that they back up your argument because they don't. So you know the history of why there is an armed citizenry. There were lots of things that happened in the past that are no longer applicable. Slavery. Only land owners being allowed to vote. Women not voting. All in the past. As is you analogy.

The notion that "freedom and civil liberties only belong in the past and have no place in modern society" is wrong.

It is again why people need to keep voting for Republicans.

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom and civil liberties, and Republicans will protect America from progressives.

At the end of the day, weird as it may be, I'm going to quote comedian Jim Jeffries. The only reason US citizens have guns is because they like them.

That is more than enough reason for someone to own guns.

I think the right to form a militia that can bear arms is the point of the 2nd.

It isn't.

The points of the Second Amendment are:

a) To require the government to always have a highly effective militia, and

b) to forbid the government from infringing the preexisting right to keep and bear arms.

Otherwise, why mention militia at all.

Because they wanted to require the government to always have a highly effective militia.

Why not just say "Hey, guys, this amendment says you can carry your peashooter anywhere you want, any time of day and have it on your persons all the time if you want"?

The right to keep and bear arms includes at the very least people using guns to privately defend their homes.

It's not a civil liberty.

Yes it is. These denials of our civil liberties is why it is important to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Republicans will prevent progressives from abolishing America's freedom.

And pre 1400 years ago?

There is reason to believe that the right predates that. However, that is when the Germanic tribes first started writing stuff down.

Or do you just pick and choose what parts of history fit your narrative?

The Germanic tribes appear to have originated around 600 BC in the pre-Roman Iron Age, so if you want to penpoint the origin of the right, that is probably when it originated.

there is a problem with your 'inherent' rights. Who gets to decide what one is? I like raping and pillaging. That is my inherent right.

If a right actually exists, there will be a legal history of it having existed.

So you quote three justices who gave their opinion. And that is all it is. An opinion.

There are facts to back up that opinion. Like the fact that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Second Amendment. And the fact that the Second Amendment does not attempt to define the right. It merely says that the right shall not be infringed.

You don't think I could hunt around and find opinions from justices over the years who back up my opinion. Hell, it's already been posted a couple of times on this thread alone.

I don't think you can find any Supreme Court rulings that back up your opinion.

Although if you presented a compelling argument that the Supreme Court is wrong, I would be happy to listen to that argument.

Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.

If you are referring to pistol grips and flash suppressors, they are not any sort of problem at all.