I do not think that my community should be sovereign. A sovereign state is represented by one centralized government. If every state was represented by one centralized government I believe it could cause chaos. The government could support states that they wanted to and ignore states that they thought less of. Every citizens needs couldn’t possibly be met because it is impossible for one president or one small group of people to govern millions. It would simply be overwhelming and chaotic, at least in my opinion.
<span>george washington carver
</span>
In 1788, the colonization of Austria began ... * ahem * Australia
In Europe, meanwhile, one Cake raged. As a result of the war, Great Britain captured the Ionian Islands, Malta, Seychelles, Mauritius, Saint Lucia, Tobago; Trinidad was taken from Spain, Guyana and the Cape colony from the Netherlands.
In Asia, Britain had the goal of spreading its influence in India and China.
The British ruled India with the help of the East India Company, and for a long time it was effective. Moreover, the principalities are governed by locals who are subordinate to the British (if that has always been a hired army. You never know)
However, everything comes to an end. Namely: in 1858, these mercenaries decided to set up a bund.
The riot was suppressed, the problem is different. Who to trust now?
So the British thought and established direct control over India, thereby laying the foundation for British India. In 1858, Queen Victoria was crowned as Empress of India.
In China, they traded in drugs. So what? It may be mean, but how else to get at least something from this China?
Only the Chinese did not really like it. Because of what the Opium Wars began. As a result of the first, Britain received the island of Hong Kong in 1842.
Let's dig into Russia for a minute. What is she? Yes ... ... The Persians and the Ottomans only win ... And they may invade India.
“If a fight is inevitable - hit first”, Britain thought, and hit ... No, not Russia (it will be a little later), but Afghanistan. But Britain did not succeed (yes, and it happens).
Later, Britain and Russia will fight for Afghanistan, but no one will conquer it.
In Africa, there were conflicts with the Boers - former residents of the Cape Colony, who were driven out by the British. The Boers founded their own states, which the British tried to capture, but they succeeded only in 1902
In 1869, the Suez Canal was founded.
In the 1880s, Egypt came under British control (although not direct).
In the same 1880s, Europeans began to colonize Africa. And who, if not Britain, will not join the sharing.
Its is a no human inhabitant because nobody lives there is no residents nor community on the land also <span>no permanent residents.</span>
These headlines speak about the law on the sale and carrying of firearms, as well as the legality of the existing Gun Control Law. Gun control is a set of laws that regulate the production, sale, transfer, possession and use of firearms. According to Second Amendment of the Constitution that the well-regulated militias necessary for the security of the free State, as well as the right of the people to guard and carry weapons, will not be infringed. While any other law that infringes the operational clause of the amendment, violates it. So all these headlines represent a debate about the Second Amendment.
The answer is: D.
