A. The present
Hope this helpzzz
“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
Answer:
True
Explanation:
In 1973 President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act into law, in response to the OPEC embargo.
The colonization period in Haiti was difficult, one of the hardest ones in all the Americas, the slavery was cataloged as the cruelest ever known, and the general live conditions for middle and lower classes were not good at all.
At the bottom of the social pyramid were the slaves, however the french soldiers had really hard duties on those times, they can be cataloged like <em>¨White slaves¨</em>, obviously they haven´t to perform the slave´s work, however duties turning around the slavery, extended shifts and dreadful life conditions made their work a difficult one.
So Haitian Slaves and French soldiers were technically in a similar spot, however, the slaves had survival and another kind of advantages over the French soldiers, a key point was the resistance or partial immunity to different diseases, unfortunately, that wasn´t the French´s case.
Yellow fever was a major issue to the French forces in Haiti, debilitated the army, and was one of the key points of the posterior events (the slavery and Haiti revolutions).
So definitely the two kinds of newcomers to Haiti, haven´t the same fate, the majority of slaves adapted quickly to new territory. the opposite happened to the French soldiers.
