Answer:
Kings and lords would view this statement as a very aggressive one against their kingdoms if they were not contextualized.
Explanation:
The reasons behind this answer are that in the first place if the kings and lords who heard this statement didn't have the religious context to understand it, they would feel assaulted or threatened because they would take it literally instead of metaphorical. That is the reason why we have to contextualize our public before we tell share our ideas with them.
“That the subjects . . . may have arms for their defense” is the right listed in the English Bill of Rights and is the basis for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
<h3>What the second amendment ensures?</h3>
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads: "A nicely regulated Militia, being vital to the safety of a free State, the rights of the humans to preserve and endure Arms, shall now no longer be infringed."
The amendment was created in more hostile times to guarantee people and states' right to self-defense, and it enables US residents to keep and bear arms for such purposes.
The missing information in the question is given below:
“that levying money for or to the use of the Crown . . . without grant of Parliament . . . is illegal” “that it is the right of the subjects to petition the king” “That the raising or keeping a standing army . . . unless it is with consent of Parliament, is against law” “That the subjects . . . may have arms for their defense”
Thus, “That the subjects . . . may have arms for their defense” is the right listed in the English Bill of Rights and is the basis for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Learn more about second amendment:
brainly.com/question/1750552
#SPJ1
they are selected when citizens of a nation vote for them to be elected, by popular demand of the people(democracy) i hope that helps
