The history of the American Revolution does not prove that owning small firearms is a means for citizens to defend themselves.
<h3 /><h3>Does the American Revolution support the Second Amendment?</h3>
Proponents of the Second Amendment had the notion that if civilians had small firearms, they would be able to defend themselves against tyrannical governments.
Yet this was not the case in the American Revolution because the people could not rely on small firearms to defend themselves against the British.
They had to rely on heavy artillery and arms which was what the British had as well.
Find out more on the Second Amendment at brainly.com/question/1750552.
#SPJ1
<u>Answer:</u>
<em>The four colonies include
</em>
<em>1. Peninsulares
</em>
<em>2. Creoles
</em>
<em>3. Mestizos
</em>
<em>4. Mulattos
</em>
<em></em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
The peninsular was the highest caste in the Spanish colonial society. They were the only class of people who hold public office, and they were from the mainland of Spain. Creoles were the next level of organization, and they were those people directly descendant from Spanish blood but born in the colonies. Mulattoes and mestizos were relatively low classes, and these people were of mixed races between Spaniards and Africans or Native Americans. The Spanish viewed Africans to be the lowest class, even beneath the Native Americans.
With new technological advancements there was no longer a need for as many workers and companies could now pay workers less due to the job being easier, in some countries such as England or the US this lead to revolts and rebellions, the likes of which paved the foundation of communism
Answer:
It put Hitler and the Axis powers on the defensive rather than on the offensive.
Explanation:
The Zealots were <u>a political movement in 1st-century Second Temple Judaism</u>, which sought to incite the people of Judea Province to <u>rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms</u>, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70).