They are unrelated. Present day traditionalists are attached to guaranteeing that the Second Amendment was made so the nationals could oppose oppression and help battle to protect the Constitution, including the First Amendment. It wasn't. This is revisionist history. It was made to keep Congress and Congress alone from restricting the privilege to remain battle ready, which would keep the states from setting up local armies utilizing residents' weapons.
Actually, the states dependably had the ability to direct guns any way they needed, in light of the fact that at first, the Second Amendment didn't make a difference to them by any means. They likewise had the ability to confine discourse and the press et cetera, on the grounds that the First Amendment didn't have any significant bearing to them either.
Popular opinion turned against South African apartheid.
Answer:
no
Explanation:
for example switserland is a neutral country not being in the eu or in any alliances and has a strong dominant economy.
Answer:
<h3>B. feed and house British soldiers.</h3>
Explanation:
One of the strangest parts of the history of the British Empire involves that commercial venture generally known as the East India Company, though its original name when founded by royal charter on the very last day of 1600 was the <em>Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies</em><span>. </span>
