It can be expanded to include abortion, can it not?
Probably not. Again, some state laws that ban things being imported from another state are based on possessing something that's illegal, it actually doesn't matter where you get your weed from, if you're in Idaho possessing it, it's illegal.
Nothing like that involved in a woman traveling for a procedure and coming back.... not possessing anything.
The groomed kids going for puberty blockers outside of Idaho come into Idaho.... possessing the puberty blocking drugs, that's something that can be prosecuted.
This is all different, because a woman who goes for that procedure doesn't come back with anything banned. It's simply not the origin state's jurisdiction to prosecute something that happened in another state where it's legal.
So it'd be challenged.
How about loading and firing?
Well I can tell you'd do a bang up job by not even mentioning working the action.
Now, granted, an unmaintained weapon is going to be horribly inaccurate, but at 800 rounds a minute, the law of averages makes up for that.
Unmaintained weapon will jam and have stoppages, and not fire, and that is another thing that can complicate modern firearms, knowing how to clear stoppages
[Staff Edit] The founding fathers thought it right for the free people of the state to possess the same kinds of armaments that militaries would have, because they thought it important that our people were not simply outgunned by being limited in the types of arms they had vs a foreign professional military that invades us... or
or...
a professional military of a future tyrannical US government. That has always been part of the rationale. The country was created by violent revolution against a tyrant. It was always seen as a possibility that the people might need to do that again.
How about the modern use of firearms? How about the modern use of society?
Irrelevant, the original purposes of the 2nd Amendment are still true.
As you said, however, it's an armed populous supporting a professional (Ukrainian) military.
Care to see what happens when an armed populous has to replace a professional military? I don't.
Care to see what happens when you don't have an armed populace and get invaded by a country like Russia or China? I don't.
If China were to invade Australia it'd go very poorly for the Australians Unlike what Russia is dealing with in Ukraine they'd be able to take and hold territory because the populace is disarmed. Actually in Ukraine they were able to take and hold territory in the rural areas until the cities (where they were distributing arms to civilians and teaching them to use them) repelled the invasion and they withdrew. That's why all the war crimes against civilians are in rural areas, those rural civilians were not armed in time.
But those in the cities got guns, so they could help the military.
Texas is the last place in the country I expect to see a "GUN FREE" anything... But I could be wrong.
The Gun Free School Zones act of 1990 is federal law. It affects every single state.
It is why schools are a popular target for mass shooters. They know nobody can shoot back.
We don't protect them with guns... They protect themselves with guns... And by hiring people with guns.
Who can the children afford to hire?
The public hires the police, but we don't have armed police officers at school, it's a public school, why shouldn't we have armed police paid for by the public at our public schools also paid for by the public?