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).
Answer:
Explanation:
The D-Day invasion took years of planning, and, in months leading up to it, the Allies began a military deception strategy known as Operation Bodyguard. This operation was intended to mislead German forces as to the exact day and location of the suspected invasion.
Those planning the invasion determined specific weather conditions based on moon phases, time of day, and ocean tides that would be most ideal for a successful invasion. When the appointed time of the invasion came, the weather was far from these conditions, and the invasion was pushed back a day
On the morning of D-Day, paratroopers and glider troops were sent behind enemy lines by the thousands to secure bridges and exit roads. Then, at 6:30 in the morning, the beach landings began. By the end of the day, over 150,000 Allied troops had successfully stormed and captured Normandy’s beaches—but at a high price. By some estimates, over 4,000 of the Allied forces lost their lives. Thousands more were recorded as wounded or missing.
Answer:
C ,is a person, not a thing.
Explanation:
i got it right on edge
Hello!
He compared the Americans view of the labd to the Europeans viewof the land.
Similarities:
Both empires emerged in the 14th and 15th centuries as postclassic civilizations building on the innovations of earlier political powers but expanding to greater extents
Both empires were entirely infantry, but well supplied, well-organized, and extremely aggressive and militaristic. Javelins, slings, spears and maces were used in battle.
Both empires had inherent instabilities
Both empires were fueled by corn.
Both empires have little to no seafaring, and instead stuck to the mountains and valleys in the center of the region.
Both empires conquered hundreds of cities in the region that resented their rule and taxation
Both empires were ended by Spanish invasions that capitalized on native divisions, introduced disease, and Spanish technology of guns, horses, and steel.
Both empires are misnamed-the Inka was the ruler of Tawantinsuyu, and the Aztecs adopted the name Mexica.
Both empires provided public education
Both Atahualpa and Moctezuma decided against confronting the Spanish militarily, allowing for the Spanish to take the Emperors hostage.
Attempts to restore the monarchy came after the capture and death of the emperor, but were too late.
Differences:
The Incas were bronze age, Aztecs were stone age
THe Incas assigned governors and shuffled conquered peoples around. There was a greater centralization than in Mexico
The Aztecs were a tributary empire, not a direct one.
The Aztecs had writing, while the Incas used Quipu
The Aztecs still had many rivals left unsubdued
The Inca used mostly potatoes while corn was far more dominant in Mexico.
The Inca had llamas, small but important livestock that made transport easier
The Inca had a sophisticated courier system of Chasquis along state-maintained roads
The Inca used bronze axes and halberds, with slings and maces as their main weapons alongside spears. The Aztecs used obsidian swords and glaives instead for close combat, and used javelins far more. Likewise, while Inca military relied on the unit’s experience and officer corps for their quality like the Romans, the Aztecs instead had a feudalistic division between the elite knights and commoners, with advancement by taking captives.
The Inca allowed women into their schools but not commoners. The Aztecs prohibited women but allowed for peasant men to also gain an education.
The diseases that destroyed the Incas came before the Spanish actually arrived in Peru, while the Spanish had been in Mexico for months before the plagues killed the emperor and populace.
Moctezuma’s mistake was trying to use generosity to awe the Spanish and try to coax them on his side, while Atahualpa’s was trying to awe them with his army rather than actually using it.
The Inca political crisis was a civil war between two brothers, while the Aztec’s was a three way duel between the King, the Priests, and the Aristocracy and military.
