1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Alex17521 [72]
2 years ago
6

High school Topic. If u don't know don't respond. This is A History Topic. A friend of mines? If u Know her tell me Her Name is

Alanii She is in High school
History
1 answer:
Keith_Richards [23]2 years ago
6 0

Answer:LoveMeLikeYouDo2 ?

Explanation:

You might be interested in
This man is a famous sports player.
katrin2010 [14]

Answer:

nose xdxdxdxdxxdxdxdxdxdxdxd

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
World war 2 question
Paraphin [41]

Answer: 1) What two countries were already involved in a military conflict before the beginning of World War II? 2) What was the longest battle of World War II? 3) What was the first Nazi concentration camp? 4) In which battle did the Axis powers lose about a quarter of their total troops on the Eastern Front?

3 0
2 years ago
Which item became an increasingly common form of currency in ancient civilizations by the third century B.C.?
Leni [432]
Metal coins i think
6 0
3 years ago
What was the first Korean kingdom founder
Damm [24]
The first Korean Kingdom was 고조선, whose founder was 단군왕검.
4 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • 2. (a) According to Article 151, what was a
    14·1 answer
  • What did hitler say the people of austria met him with when he crossed into their land?
    14·1 answer
  • Read this excerpt from “Civil Disobedience.”
    15·2 answers
  • Companies in Japan today feel they have a duty to look after their employees and their families. In turn, employees feel loyalty
    14·1 answer
  • The type of government that Lenin established in Russia can be best described as______
    15·2 answers
  • Which type of workers did Cesar Chevez and Dolores Huerta unionize?
    7·1 answer
  • Where is Alcatraz at
    9·2 answers
  • One of Congress's nonlegislative powers is to approve or reject the president's nominees for office
    12·1 answer
  • 1. Explain two consequences of the Potsdam conference, 1945. (8 marks)
    5·1 answer
  • Any one here listen to Sabaton?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!