1787-1800
On May 5, 1789, the Senate passed its first bill -- the Oath Act. That first oath, for members and civil servants, was very simple: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States."...
There can be a difference between Constitutional guns and legal guns. When Senators take office they are suppose to know what the difference is and act to protect the USA Constitution.
Currently, there is a wide variety of legal guns in the USA. The only reason they are legal while being unconstitutional is lack of criminal code and regulation.
There can be many things about life that are legal and not necessary to 'codify.' Dogs as pets can be dangerous, but, it isn't necessary to codify them because the reality within society is arranged differently. The federal government isn't going to regulate dogs as pets because it is left to the local governments and dog catchers to carry out safety for citizens. Dogs as pets are codified at the local level of government and in some areas of the country they are not codified at all.
The reason to codify any danger to citizens is based upon the necessity to do so. It is necessary in the USA to legislate greater safety in relation to gun ownership. In 1787 when the Senate wrote their oath of office it was not necessary to regulate guns. The world was different.
But, the fact Senators such as Ayotte and Flake find it necessary to lie about the reality of the 'status' of guns in the USA as constitutional or not is a violation of their oath of office. The Senators are suppose to look the NRA in the eye and state, "...but, the NRA is stating these guns are constitutional and necessary to the sovereign state of the USA while we have a military to carry out our national security. That is not correct and it is completely within the constitutional authority of the Senate to pass laws to protect the lives of Americans." That is what the Senators should be stating to all their political financial backers, but, they aren't. The Senators that ignore their oath of office to benefit them financially know full well they are doing so. They are corrupted and corruptible. Should they be in office? I don't think so.
There can be a difference between Constitutional guns and legal guns. When Senators take office they are suppose to know what the difference is and act to protect the USA Constitution.
Currently, there is a wide variety of legal guns in the USA. The only reason they are legal while being unconstitutional is lack of criminal code and regulation.
There can be many things about life that are legal and not necessary to 'codify.' Dogs as pets can be dangerous, but, it isn't necessary to codify them because the reality within society is arranged differently. The federal government isn't going to regulate dogs as pets because it is left to the local governments and dog catchers to carry out safety for citizens. Dogs as pets are codified at the local level of government and in some areas of the country they are not codified at all.
The reason to codify any danger to citizens is based upon the necessity to do so. It is necessary in the USA to legislate greater safety in relation to gun ownership. In 1787 when the Senate wrote their oath of office it was not necessary to regulate guns. The world was different.
But, the fact Senators such as Ayotte and Flake find it necessary to lie about the reality of the 'status' of guns in the USA as constitutional or not is a violation of their oath of office. The Senators are suppose to look the NRA in the eye and state, "...but, the NRA is stating these guns are constitutional and necessary to the sovereign state of the USA while we have a military to carry out our national security. That is not correct and it is completely within the constitutional authority of the Senate to pass laws to protect the lives of Americans." That is what the Senators should be stating to all their political financial backers, but, they aren't. The Senators that ignore their oath of office to benefit them financially know full well they are doing so. They are corrupted and corruptible. Should they be in office? I don't think so.
