1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Liula [17]
3 years ago
7

Moses responded to God's call with all of the following excuses except :

History
1 answer:
miskamm [114]3 years ago
8 0
Actually, the excuse Moses didn't use is Who are you?
Obviously, Moses didn't ask God who he was because he knew who God was - he had been waiting for him for his entire life. Additionally, he did ask God 'Who am I,' meaning 'Why did you choose me for this task?' He also asked his what he should say because he is not eloquent enough and people won't believe his words.
You might be interested in
What impact did the Great Depression have on the lives of ordinary Americans ?
coldgirl [10]
All of the above.....
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
"The Cold War refers to the political, economic, and military struggle between the capitalist camp dominated by the United State
nikdorinn [45]

Answer:

Correct Answer:

A. True

Explanation:

After the end of World War 2, the victors, US and the Soviet Union relationship started falling. This is due to some factors like communisim practiced in Soviet as well as the tyrannical nature of the Soviet Union. The Soviet on the otherhand, resented America for delaying in entering the war inorder not to join the losing group.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
World war i was known as a "total war" because it involved the efforts of many civilians in addition to the military. today, how
Sati [7]
If the story of "All Quiet on the Western Front" was told today, the story would be much different, especially if it was told from the viewpoint of an American soldier involved in the War on Terror. First, the protagonist would not be coming from a nation that is in a state of total war.  The War on Terror is a limited war and does not require the undivided focus of the American government, industry, and economy.  A soldier, today, would likely be volunteering to join the military, instead of being all but forced to like the characters in "All Quiet on the Western Front."  Second, the total detachment the soldiers in "All Quiet on the Western Front" feel from their civilian lives would not be as pronounced, given how today's soldiers are able to communicate with their friends and family back home by way of email, online chat, and quicker postal service.  Thirdly, today's American soldiers are provided with far better and more extensive military training than the soldiers in "All Quiet on the Western Front" are, hence they would be more prepared for the combat experiences they must endure. 
4 0
3 years ago
What are the different types of congressional bills and resolutions?
lutik1710 [3]

Answer: In legislation there are four types: joint resolutions, bills, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions.

Resolution is a measure that requires pass by the House of Representatives and Senate, after that is shown to the President for approval or disapproval. The three types of resolutions are joint resolutions, simple resolutions and concurrent resolutions.

Bills are legislative proposals that, if decree, has the force of law. There are two types public bills and private bills.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • 11. During World War II, Americans bought over $150 billion worth of bonds In order to
    8·1 answer
  • #4
    14·1 answer
  • Richard Nixon won the presidential race of 1968 in part because...
    6·2 answers
  • How do you think Americans’ state of mind was influenced by the Red Scare
    11·1 answer
  • How does an author build an effective argument?
    8·1 answer
  • What was the body of water that Magellan reached after passing around South America?
    7·2 answers
  • Which group filled the expanding need for domestic help during the Victorian Age?
    15·1 answer
  • What was Suresh Jayakar's project/idea?
    11·1 answer
  • What weaknesses in the national government did Shays' Rebellion reveal?
    10·1 answer
  • What do we have to consider when building context around any document
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!