What's a hill you 100% die on? (Please refrain from political subjects)

[Garolymar]

Isn't Subway the largest fast-food chain globally?

I think so, I question the success of a lot of very popular things when there are clearly better options though.

 

[ShrimpShady]

The fact that Subway needs to hurry up and close.

When I spent some time in the UK, having Subway for breakfast felt like the pinnacle of civilized society, along with drinking tap water. As I grew accustomed to it, however, I realized that there must be more to sandwiches than this.

It was fresh though. I'll say that much.

 

[Gray_Mann]

When I spent some time in the UK, having Subway for breakfast felt like the pinnacle of civilized society, along with drinking tap water. As I grew accustomed to it, however, I realized that there must be more to sandwiches than this.

It was fresh though. I'll say that much.

I will admit that Subway's sub called The Outlaw is amazing. I've never been impressed with Subway. The only thing I ever ate there was the Meatbal Marinara Sub....but man The Outlaw was so extremely satisfying. Subway, around here anyway, has a habit of getting rid of their best-sellers after awhile and once they get rid of the Outlaw, they'll be dead to me. I found a better Meatball Marinara somewhere else recently.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

My hill is that men should be men and women should be women.

Yes, there are various implications of this simple statement.

 

[Gray_Mann]

My hill is that men should be men and women should be women.

Yes, there are various implications of this simple statement.

Watch yourself. The confused alphabet people exist on this site also. They might cancel you for this, and remove your ability to make a BlueSky account. Awful right? The horror....

 

[LuoirM]

My hill is that men should be men and women should be women.

Yes, there are various implications of this simple statement.

Femboys supremacy

 

[ShrimpShady]

My hill is that men should be men and women should be women.

Yes, there are various implications of this simple statement.

Femboys supremacy

 

[Gray_Mann]

I was always annoyed that he defeated L....and then lost to people who were essentially L's students/groupies/lackeys. I have to tell myself that overconfidence is what brought Light down because that's the only thing that makes any sense.

 

[Garolymar]

I was always annoyed that he defeated L....and then lost to people who were essentially L's students/groupies/lackeys. I have to tell myself that overconfidence is what brought Light down because that's the only thing that makes any sense.

The Deathnote was just too powerful to not need some plot convenience to shake out its user. If Light didn't have his god complex he probably could've just sat watching the news for the next 40-50 years and killed people uninterrupted. Hell once the internet really took off he'd probably become even more efficient.

 

[Hounoku]

Now that I'm back due to my Prof running late, have I mentioned I haven't slept since yesterday because I downed about 2 liters of milk coffee?
The numbers are not exaggerated. The bottle I drank it from have measurements.
Stuffs not healthy for you, speaking from experience. My heart was beating all night long.
Helped me write Tho. Rainy nights have those magic.

 

[Hoshino]

Antarctica.

 

[Deleted member 206441]

Agent Maria Hill

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

The 2nd amendment's always been interesting to me as a non-American. I understand the reason for it, but I wonder how that whole safeguarding the free state from tyranny thing would work.

Guess y'all gotta wait for a tyrannical regime, huh?

The original purpose was a different, mainly about army organisation. The tyranny aspect is a most recent invention that cannot be traced back to it originally. Also, the guns for everyone interpretation is also a more recent development.

 

[Rezcore]

The original purpose was a different, mainly about army organisation. The tyranny aspect is a most recent invention that cannot be traced back to it originally. Also, the guns for everyone interpretation is also a more recent development.

I respectful disagree.

Noah Webster:

An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787):

> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."

Context: Webster is suggesting that the people's ability to resist tyranny rests on being armed.

Patrick Henry:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "The great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."


Context: Henry was concerned about the federal government having too much power, including over military forces, and argued that widespread gun ownership was essential for liberty.

George Mason:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


Context: Mason argued against exclusive government control of arms and for broad civilian participation in militias. This has been used in modern times to argue that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.

Thomas Jefferson:

Letter to William Stephens Smith (1787):

> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


Context: Jefferson was responding to Shays' Rebellion. He was not advocating violence generally, but he saw a certain value in citizens having arms and a spirit of resistance.

James Madison (Father of the Constitution):

Federalist No. 46 (1788):

> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition... To these [state governments] would be opposed a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."


Context: Madison is comparing the U.S. to European nations where governments had standing armies and subjects were disarmed. He implies that the militia, made up of the armed citizenry, is a bulwark against federal overreach.

 

[Dark_Phoenix_Zaetyk]

A hill of boobs?,does that count?

 

[Anonjohn20]

The original purpose was a different, mainly about army organisation.

No.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not a right of the military, but a right of the people to bear arms and/or form militias should they choose. Keep in mind a militia consisted of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who were, or who had made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

The tyranny aspect is a most recent invention that cannot be traced back to it originally.

It can be traced back to the founding fathers having just finished fighting a war with the British LOL. Thomas Jefferson literally wrote, "Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God." on his personal seal; every letter he wrote had that imprinted in wax.

Also, the guns for everyone interpretation is also a more recent development.

Not guns, arms (as in all weapons). The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be as well equipped as the military (if they were alive, they'd be disappointed to see that citizens are not allowed to own tanks or fighter jets); this was something many people believed in (before nukes were invented). People who still believe this are generally referred to as 2A absolutists.

 

[Rezcore]

Also, the guns for everyone interpretation is also a more recent development.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I respectful disagree.

Noah Webster:

An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787):

> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."

Context: Webster is suggesting that the people's ability to resist tyranny rests on being armed.

Patrick Henry:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "The great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."


Context: Henry was concerned about the federal government having too much power, including over military forces, and argued that widespread gun ownership was essential for liberty.

George Mason:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


Context: Mason argued against exclusive government control of arms and for broad civilian participation in militias. This has been used in modern times to argue that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.

Thomas Jefferson:

Letter to William Stephens Smith (1787):

> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


Context: Jefferson was responding to Shays' Rebellion. He was not advocating violence generally, but he saw a certain value in citizens having arms and a spirit of resistance.

James Madison (Father of the Constitution):

Federalist No. 46 (1788):

> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition... To these [state governments] would be opposed a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."


Context: Madison is comparing the U.S. to European nations where governments had standing armies and subjects were disarmed. He implies that the militia, made up of the armed citizenry, is a bulwark against federal overreach.

I respectful disagree.

Noah Webster:

An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787):

> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."

Context: Webster is suggesting that the people's ability to resist tyranny rests on being armed.

Patrick Henry:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "The great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun."


Context: Henry was concerned about the federal government having too much power, including over military forces, and argued that widespread gun ownership was essential for liberty.

George Mason:

Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788):

> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


Context: Mason argued against exclusive government control of arms and for broad civilian participation in militias. This has been used in modern times to argue that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.

Thomas Jefferson:

Letter to William Stephens Smith (1787):

> "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


Context: Jefferson was responding to Shays' Rebellion. He was not advocating violence generally, but he saw a certain value in citizens having arms and a spirit of resistance.

James Madison (Father of the Constitution):

Federalist No. 46 (1788):

> "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition... To these [state governments] would be opposed a militia amounting to nearly half a million citizens with arms in their hands."


Context: Madison is comparing the U.S. to European nations where governments had standing armies and subjects were disarmed. He implies that the militia, made up of the armed citizenry, is a bulwark against federal overreach.

No.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Not a right of the military, but a right of the people to bear arms and/or form militias should they choose. Keep in mind a militia consisted of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who were, or who had made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.


It can be traced back to the founding fathers having just finished fighting a war with the British LOL. Thomas Jefferson literally wrote, "Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God." on his personal seal; every letter he wrote had that imprinted in wax.


Not guns, arms (as in all weapons). The founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be as well equipped as the military (if they were alive, they'd be disappointed to see that citizens are not allowed to own tanks or fighter jets); this was something many people believed in (before nukes were invented). People who still believe this are generally referred to as 2A absolutists.

Currently no time to reply, but why is the comma there before shall not be infringed?

 

[Rezcore]

Currently no time to reply, but why is the comma there before shall not be infringed?

To break up the sentence. It was the grammar of the time

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

To break up the sentence. It was the grammar of the time

Is it not an apposition, though?