Level 1 Rights, Level 100 Weapons

One of the strangest features of the modern gun debate is that we often speak about the Second Amendment as if technology has not changed. It has — radically, irrevocably, and in ways no legislator of 1791 could have anticipated or intended.

The Baseline Was a Level 1 Weapon

When the amendment was ratified, the typical firearm available to a citizen was a flintlock musket or pistol. These weapons shared a very specific profile of limitation:

• One shot before reloading — often a 15 to 30 second process
• Significant inaccuracy beyond short distances
• Black-powder reliability failures in wet or cold conditions
• No rapid-fire capability of any kind

If we assign that technology an arbitrary power level of 1, we can at least begin to reason about what has changed since.

Illustrative Power Scale — Civilian Firearms by Era

1791 Flintlock Musket1×

Early Repeating Rifle (1860s)~10×

Modern Semiautomatic Rifle~50×

Anti-Materiel / High-Capacity Systems~100×

* Scale is conceptual and illustrative — not a formal ballistic or legal standard. Intended to frame the scope of technological change.

The Firecracker Analogy

Consider a simpler thought experiment. Imagine the founders had written a law regulating firecrackers. At the time, the most powerful explosive available to the average citizen was roughly equivalent to a small consumer firecracker.

Now imagine someone arguing today that the same law must automatically govern:

• M-80s
• Military fragmentation grenades
• Commercial sticks of dynamite

The reaction would be immediate: the original law was written with a specific technological scale in mind. No rational legislature writes a rule for firecrackers and assumes it must cover dynamite by the same logic.

"The question is not whether the Second Amendment exists. The question is how a constitutional principle written for one technological era should apply to another."

The Founders Were Practical Legislators

The founders were not technological mystics composing abstract principles for a timeless void. They were practical people writing law for a world they understood — and that world already contained meaningful distinctions in destructive scale.

Early American law already regulated:

• Gunpowder storage — limits on quantity and location
• Cannons — treated differently than personal arms
• Militia equipment — specific requirements for service weapons
• Weapons in public spaces — locality-based restrictions

Even within the technology of 1791, the founders distinguished between weapons based on scale and danger. There is no principled reason to assume they intended the exact opposite for all future generations.

✦   ✦   ✦

The Constitutional Question Reframed

The Debate We're Having

Guns vs. no guns. Rights vs. regulation. The amendment as a fixed rule written for all future technology.

This framing produces an impasse.

The Debate Worth Having

What level of destructive capability did the founders intend citizens to possess?

If the baseline was Level 1, what principles govern Levels 10, 50, or 100?

Rights are not abolished by technological change — but their application evolves. The First Amendment governs the internet. The Fourth Amendment has been extended to digital privacy and electronic surveillance. Courts reason about changed circumstances constantly.

The Second Amendment need not be treated as uniquely frozen in 1791 amber while every other constitutional principle adapts to the world as it actually exists.

Thought Experiment

Suppose the founders could step into the present. They observe rifles capable of dozens of shots in seconds. Weapons designed to penetrate vehicle armor. Suppressors engineered specifically to reduce detection and response time.

Would they say: "Yes, that is precisely what we intended."

Or would they ask a more practical question: What level of power did we actually mean citizens to have?

The honest answer is almost certainly the second. They were not ideologues. They were engineers of governance.

The Conclusion the Scale Forces

Ignoring technological change produces a legal absurdity: treating radically different tools as if they occupy the same category simply because both involve a projectile and a trigger. By that logic, a firecracker and a stick of dynamite are the same object.

The debate over the Second Amendment is not, at its root, about whether Americans have a right to bear arms. Most people across the political spectrum accept that right in some form.

The real debate — the one worth having — is about technological scale. The founders wrote law for a Level 1 world. Two centuries of invention have produced weapons that may be 10, 50, or 100 times more capable by any meaningful measure.

At some point on that scale, the question stops being about the amendment itself and starts being about what it was always actually about: what degree of lethal power a free society chooses to place in private hands, and by whose judgment that line is drawn.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Impeachment vs. the 25th Amendment: What’s More Likely to Remove Trump?

On convicted felon POTUS47 Donald Trump's impeachment.

No, that's useless. 

25th Amendment actually might eventually gain traction with Republicans as We're now just waiting around until it is finally invoked, unsurprisingly likely (necessarily) from Republicans, AFTER it's too late to save our economy while not much caring about our democracy.

Might the 25th Amendment eventually gain traction among Republicans? Only after Trump has already inflicted significant damage—especially to the economy—while they remain largely indifferent to democratic concerns. That reflects a deep cynicism about their motivations, implying they’ll act only when their own interests are at stake, rather than out of principle.

It’s an interesting perspective, especially given how reluctant Republicans have been to challenge Trump in the past. If they do invoke the 25th, it would signal an internal fracture, but as you suggest, likely too little, too late. Do you see any particular triggers that might push them to that point?

If the 25th Amendment were to gain traction among Republicans, it would likely take something undeniable—either a catastrophic economic collapse, an extreme foreign policy blunder, or a public display of cognitive or emotional instability that even his staunchest defenders can’t spin away.

The challenge is that the GOP has built itself around Trump’s brand, and many fear political exile if they turn on him. But if Wall Street panics, major donors start pulling support, or a crisis puts them in direct jeopardy, self-preservation might override loyalty.

It wouldn’t be unprecedented—Nixon’s party stuck with him until the moment it became politically untenable. If something similar happens, they’d frame it as "regretful but necessary" rather than an admission of prior failure.

We already have undeniable and Republicans are in denial.

If everything that’s already happened hasn’t been enough, then what would be? It seems like the threshold keeps shifting—what was once unthinkable just becomes the new normal.

At this point, it feels like the only thing that could push them would be a direct, immediate threat to their own power or financial interests. Even then, they'd probably try to salvage Trump until it’s absolutely unsustainable.

So yeah, "waiting around until it’s finally invoked" seems depressingly accurate—if it ever happens at all.

The 25th Amendment, specifically Sections 1 and 2, which clarify presidential succession and how to fill a VP vacancy.

The real controversy around invoking the 25th Amendment on Trump would come from Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or another body Congress designates) to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." That would temporarily transfer power to the VP, but if the president disputes it, Congress would have to decide—requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to permanently remove him.

That’s the part that’s never been used and would likely spark a political firestorm. But as you pointed out earlier, Republicans would probably wait until after the damage is done before even considering it—if they ever do.

The 25th Amendment and impeachment are both ways to remove a president, but they work very differently:

Impeachment (Article I, Section 2 & 3; Article II, Section 4)

• A political process, not a medical or functional one.
• Requires the House of Representatives to bring charges ("articles of impeachment").
• The Senate then holds a trial and needs a two-thirds vote to convict and remove the president.
• A president can still run again if impeached but not convicted.
• Example: Trump was impeached twice but not removed because the Senate acquitted him both times.

25th Amendment (Section 4)

• A medical or functional incapacity process, not about crimes.
• Allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or Congress) to declare the president unable to serve due to illness, incapacity, or some other reason.
• The VP becomes acting president immediately.
• If the president disputes it, Congress must decide—with a two-thirds vote in both chambers needed to remove him permanently.
• Has never been used to remove a president but was briefly used for temporary transfers of power (e.g., when presidents underwent surgery).

The 25th Amendment is meant for cases where a president physically or mentally cannot function, while impeachment is about accountability for wrongdoing.

Right now, Republicans are unlikely to pursue either, but if they ever turn on Trump, the 25th might be their excuse if they want to avoid direct political responsibility for impeachment.

Impeachment is more likely than the 25th Amendment—but neither is very likely at this point.

Why Impeachment Is More Likely:

1. Precedent – Trump has already been impeached twice, showing that Congress is willing to go that route.
2. Lower Initial Threshold – The House only needs a simple majority to impeach, whereas the 25th requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to act first.
3. Political Maneuvering – If Trump’s actions become too damaging (e.g., economic collapse, extreme instability), Congress could use impeachment to distance themselves from him while still claiming to uphold democracy.
4. Pressure from Investigations – If ongoing investigations reveal serious misconduct (financial crimes, obstruction, etc.), impeachment could gain momentum.

Why the 25th Amendment Is Less Likely:

1. VP Loyalty – J.D. Vance (if VP) or whoever Trump picks would likely be a die-hard loyalist, making it highly unlikely they’d trigger the 25th.
2. Cabinet Control – Trump will likely fill his Cabinet with yes-men, meaning they wouldn’t support removal.
3. Political Suicide for Republicans – Any GOP official who invokes the 25th would instantly become a party outcast.
4. Historical Inertia – The 25th has never been used for removal, and doing so would trigger a constitutional crisis.

If Either Happens, When?

• Impeachment: If economic collapse, scandals, or a catastrophic blunder force Congress’s hand.
• 25th Amendment: Only if Trump mentally or physically deteriorates in a way that is undeniable even to his inner circle.

Right now, though, Republicans seem more likely to let things burn than take action—until it’s too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Having Constitutional Awareness

I grew into adulthood thinking there was the great disparity between the haves and the have nots. I cane to realize it was also between those who knew and those who did not, the educated and the uneducated. As I matured in my learning and understandings I came to find that the haves did not always know, even if they were uneducated. Their wisdom was problematic.

I'd assumed they didn't pay attention in school or to life. Then I thought they may have or not, but they followed a path of ignorance in the realm of knowledge.

Then I discovered that there is not just objective truth and subjective truth. That there is subjectivity in objectivity and there can be some objectivity in subjectivity.

Finally I came to the realization that if three people take a path to knowledge, but very dissimilar ones, you could find one who was on one path, and correct. One on another path and incorrect. But then the third could also be on a correct path.

I found that curious.

Until I discovered that there is a truth that is objective. But the orientation behind it, or the desire for what it should lead to, could be very different, even opposing in nature.

And so that brings us to our current political climate.

Even if considering only the best in this situation (that is sans Russian intervention in our culture, both social and political engineering), we could still have a situation with two passionate parties, each arguing opposing things, with very different and moral reasons. Where the question at hand isn't: are they right or wrong (they both are or can be, specifically). The issue is more all encompassing.

Even if your desired path achieved the goals you strive for, are the priorities "correct"? Will they have any collateral damage you SHOULD be aware of and concerned over and are not seeing, or considering?

When you then bring into the mix the paradigm regarding how this country was set up and how it has evolved, what should be morally correct? What is considered by some, of typically fewer numbers and in an Elite, supportive of the structure of the nation? Is the nation built upon the ideals of humanity? Economy? Or merely an elite who should make the important decisions?

If you study those questions and the reality supporting them, it is rather amazing.

When you try to make a situation (or yourself) look better than it (or you) actually do, or change the narrative to seem more positive or reasonably productive, we call that reality, "spin".

When it is used in a negative fashion as weaponized information to hide something or change the narrative in a negative way against others, we call it disinformation (from the Russian, Dezinformatsiya). A favorite Russian, Donald Trump, GOP and NRA tactic.

Also that of the tobacco and car industry. But those two have been slapped down and told in courts to stop it. And it was very costly in the end for them, but no where near the amount of money (or "winning") they did for decades (or the innocent lives lost to line their pockets with money).

Then there is the Russian concept of Maskirovka, using a mask or camouflage in your actions, using the fog of war (or society, or media) to your benefit. Be that in war, or peace time actions. It is in the grey area between war and peace. It is subverting your enemy's processes (America mostly and western democracies) to the abnormal. It disorients. Unbalances. Disrupts. And it is effective. At times, even when the subject (victim) knows about it.

What we have today are people on both sides doing what they believe is their best for our country, while having opposing paths and not giving due consideration for the fundamental concerns of "the other" or "others". For the most part regarding considerations one does not fully understand, gives priority to, or even sees as essential to the goals. It's the old situation with two opposing armies, both praying to God to help them win because they are in the right. It's ignorant. And dangerous.

That being the goal of, a healthy nation. One would presume....

But there are objective truths. It just depends on what what dimension(s) you are viewing the situation from, and are you selecting the appropriate dimension(s) to begin with?

Constitutional originalists do not give as much weight to the reality of our evolved constitutional laws as the original, or original intent of the Founding Fathers with little or no consideration for a "living" US Constitution (ratified 1788) meant to evolve to enhance the original intent.

The argument for a living, evolving Constitution is inherent in its existence.

It has after all, been amended. By the Founding Fathers themselves, who wrote it. Which therefore makes it a living evolving entity by definition. Not a religious tome, those which are defective in that sense from the day they are born into existence. IF they did not mean for it to be a living document, they would have rewritten it, added in the amendments as the original documents, and resubmitted and ratified it.

But they did not. They chose instead to amend. Arguments that ratification was too delicate to have gone through again is merely divisive and subjective, by those who desire one thing against all history and reality. You cannot argue that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing in the 2nd Amendment, but did not know what they were doing in making it to begin with...an amendment.

Much therefore is against those arguments of those 2nd Amendment (ratified in 1791) types who demand it is written in stone. Or given to us, as some have actually said, Wayne LaPierre of NRA for one, from God. Because after all, their favorite amendment then, which they would argue gives them the right to own and bear arms, regardless if they are war weaponry or not, regardless if for militia use or not, evaporates quickly.

We can end the confusion on the 2nd Amendment. And then there is the related slavery issue. Many have said that part of the reason for the odd wording of the 2nd Amendment does have to do with this issue of slavery and slavers protection and control over their "property". The north and south had contention on this and so, best not to be too clear on certain things. I doubt the foresaw the issues it would cause two hundred years later when this was no longer at issue and this oddity was still abusing our nation. Only now it's a matter of children being murdered in their schools and in the streets.

It just takes good men and women to do what is most needed and greatly desired by many. So too about issues of the fundamental structure of America being built on money and not people. Humanity.

The US Constitution actually begins....

"WE THE PEOPLE..."

Why? If then not for the people rather then starting with, "FOR OUR MONEY AND WEALTH"?

There is a reason for that.

Another interesting phrase says:

"...promote the general welfare...."

It does not however say:

"...promote the specific and minimal welfare...."

We have our path. We just need to stay on it and if necessary, continue to evolve America as our Founding Fathers set up for us to do and to beware, those who would abuse our charter and our ideals.

Now, all that being said....

It is interesting (and greatly concerning) how the alleged basis of this gun issue is about citizen gun owners who continue to disingenuously claim that their guns protect their rights. They say they are the protectors of all our rights, even those of us who do not even want some of those "rights".

Some even being questionable rights at this point in history anyway. Some not even being the rights they were given and utterly misunderstanding the intent and meaning. In part due to poor education that continues to be made worse on purpose (uneducated being easier to control), but in greater part due to those elected representatives who with a wink and a nod, control their electorates opinions. Distract them. Abuse them.

There is nothing more powerful, certainly no gun, no weapon, that is able to achieve as much as... a vote.

But because of voting incorrectly for so very long, because of voting against one's own best interests for that of the proffered shiny objects in the room, some citizen's (mostly #Republican it seems) have put us in this dire position.

They (yes, we too) have allowed Citizens United, Gerrymandering, and money to have a vote for the lofty and the few, until finally we have this counterintuitive situation wherein they cannot think themselves out of...except to repeat the same tired old dysfunctional mantras and sound bites they have been peppered with to say by their enemies whom they believe to be their friends and leaders.

It is a position from where they have convinced themselves to believe (unknowingly having been convinced by others for their own benefits divorced from those concerns of these poor citizens) that their need for guns against their own government does something for them. Arm everyone. Arm teachers (who mostly do not want that, just school supplies they cannot even afford).

Where their available and allowed personal weaponry along with a manufactured and delusional conceit of a how a citizen militia could outflank the US Military, Our standing army was not at first desired by the Founding Fathers and a state by state militia could potentially counter that. And so we have that in our National Guard. But people believe it was in Joe Bob's weekend militia were we seek our counter to the federal military branch?

Laughable really, but we do love our delusions.

And so, our children continue to be slaughtered.

And their suggestion to resolve this is what?

Simply more and more of what is killing us by adding gasoline to the flames with the only and ever the same mantra from the NRA and gun owners:

More guns, more guns!

Vote. But vote, correctly for a change and see life, not death in a gun culture such as we are and such as we have been.

Humanity, is more important than any of our devices, or our games, our toys, our guns.

Change American culture to something that can again be respected. Not just in the homes of gun owners and the boardrooms of gun manufacturers and the NRA, but the entire world. To once again look up to us and appreciate us for who we are and not who would once were, or certainly who we now could be, if only....

The situation as it is, in even considering repeal of the 2nd Amendment was brought about greatly by the NRA and extremist gun supporters who wouldn't give even an inch. So here we are. Your bed, you made it, you set yourselves up for this possibility. Your actions have demanded, either giving into anything you want, or repeal.

You are also somewhat culpable in these mass shootings.

According to the 2nd Amendment, let's start slow and take it's lead. That should satiate the NRA.

Also why has, why WOULD, the government block research on this issue?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So ONLY those who have been militia'd (current and ex military), who had training ("well regulated" and "Militia" (capitalized)), should have greater than hunting weapons?

Let's face it. ALL citizens having weapons is not well regulated or a Militia.

Perhaps then when ex military are no longer of military age, their military style weapons could go away, as they are no longer useful as a fighting force, so why would they needs military weapons?

Or we could leave them with them as award for services rendered (not all of them, perhaps).

One could also argue MOST citizens do not need hunting weapons (is it a weapon if against a defenseless animal?)

The 2nd is not open house on doing whatever you want. Only an uneducated child would read it that way. Or an addict.

It's a complicated and long term issue going back to the founding of our country.

But really, it's not all that complicated. Some people just want to make it out to be complicated.


#NRA #GOP