The first guy above me is right
Answer:
Tampa (ik this bc i live there)
Explanation:
<span>1876 Supreme Court case ruled against any individual right to bear armsSecond Amendment guaranteed only states' rights to maintain militiasState governments could regulate guns however they saw fit<span>Presser v. Illinois affirmed Cruikshank ruling, further clarified that Second Amendment rights had not been "incorporated"—that is, they were not binding on the states</span></span>
Until quite recently, the answer to that question was pretty simple—the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in just a few cases. The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be "well regulated," and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.
The correct answer is: D) It's a lot easier to remember what actually happened than to remeber how you twisted the truth to convince someone to vote your way.
If you tell the truth, the actual facts will back up your story, the only thing you must do to is go back to them and they will tell you what happened. That is the reason Mark Twain says you don't have to remeber anything. Even your senses will have memories of the experiences you lived.
If a politician lies or exaggerates he is inventing something that never happened, it will be difficult to support those lies because there is not empirical evidence of that. If someone investigates there won't be data to back up the politicians statements and he would be in trouble.
Option B says truth has a way of coming back to haunt you. As I said, the truth is supported on the evidence. Lies fall because they don´t. Mark Twain doesn't make emphasis on this part of lying, on the consecuences of telling a lie.
Option C implies using lies to convince someone of something, Mark Twain is talking about telling the truth so it is incorrect.
Answer:
Constitutional convention, Philadelphia convention, Annapolis, 1786
Explanation:
