http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Taste-the-Rainbow

There is a nice part of Yes, Prime Minister regarding nuclear deterrent that outlines my position quite nicely. http://youtu.be/IX_d_vMKswE

See, your government isn't going to sell you to slavery overnight. More likely they'll strip your rights away bit by bit. How do you protect yourself against that with a firearm. At what point do you organise a militia to overthrow the tyrants, and tbh...why hasnt it happened yet? I didn't see many gun owners defending themselves from say, the patriot act or demanding that money be out of politics while waving a 9mm around.I like the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, I think europeans are perhaps too complacent, I just don't think its really practical. Its a law from another era.

As for school shootings etc. Well, correlation doesn't equal causation. Other countries might have less firefarms and less shootings, but we also don't lock up 1/7 of black men. Some shootings you can definitely see that gun control would probably have prevented it, but you can see that if somebody really wants to kill, and spends time planning it then they're probably going to find a gun somehow.

I do think that guns raise the stakes on a lot of non-violent crimes that can turn fatal though. Neither the homeowner or the burgler want to kill the other, but both fear that the other might pull the trigger first. Its a sort of prisoners dilemna where really the only winning option is to shoot first and ask questions later. Maybe with less guns swimming around you'd get less twitchy fucks shooting black kids carryin nothing more than a bag of skittles. I don't think it does anything as a way of deterrent either, desperate people do tend to somewhat ignore all risk.

Yeah, that's it. Rub it in my colorblind face...

"Look at me with all my cones, I can see colors!!"

...pshh, cone having jerk.

>> ^probie:

Guarantee you I could sort them faster by hand.

But now you can shovel the color of your choice with both hands into your mouth! Machines work for YOU, man. Yeah, the future!

>> ^probie:

Guarantee you I could sort them faster by hand.

>> ^colt45:

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then? Let's just take this absurd myopic view one step further: Rocks are dangerous weapons that need to be banned! They are readily available to children and highly dangerous!
>> ^L0cky:
Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.
Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.
Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.


Wow. That definitely made my top 10 list of "Really stupid things that I actually read on the internet".

Seriously, when was the last time a kid accidently threw a rock and blew his friends brains out? Accidently put a hole through their own foot / hand / leg?

Sure, they can be used as a close up blunt damage weapon. However, in order to actually kill someone with a rock, it would generally have to be pre-meditated (i.e. kill them when they're asleep, because if you try to kill someone with a rock when they're concious and healthy, it probably wont go well.)

I can think of countless stories over the years involving some idiot irrational gun owner going out and killing someone they knew nothing about, because they felt threatened. Lately, the one I remember is of Trayvon Martin. You know, the kid shot for eating skittles on a street he didn't live on.

But let's go ahead and get back to the point @spoco2 was making earlier. Rocks have existed since the beginning of time. They serve no purpose, they have no design, or goal. They're simply there.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed as an instrument of death. In no part of the gun design was someone thinking "AND it'll function as a paperweight!". It was just another step further in the direction of long ranged combat, specifically for ending the life of another human being.

That's not to say that everybody who does own a gun has it for the sole reason of killing someone, after all, people still collect swords, axes, fascinating weapons from throughout the ages.

But I can't honestly see the amount of collectors being too high.

Seriously seems like they just lost out on a gold mine there. I mean why not partner up with Mars and make M&M Honey! Literally Taste the Rainbow!(Ya okay so that's skittle's slogan but you know what I mean lol)

Two aren't precedent because they have substance beyond the sexuality, and the third one is dead. The only focus of this piece is naked hot chicks. The policy is in place to keep single-purpose fap material elsewhere. I mean, is this enjoyable for any other reason?

And there's precedent for this too. There was a video with two or three hot topless women having a snowball fight. It was considered unfit for the Sift. (I searched now but couldn't find it again.) Even actual porn has been accepted, because it was a funny parody. This is nothing but boobs. I like that line to be clear.

*controversy>> ^xxovercastxx:

@messenger
http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Taste-the-Rainbow
http://videosift.com/video/BANNED-GERMAN-SPRITE-AD-BJ
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Tree-This-gets-a-10-on-the-weird-O-meter
I think there's precedent for this sort of thing.

@messenger

http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Taste-the-Rainbow
http://videosift.com/video/BANNED-GERMAN-SPRITE-AD-BJ
http://videosift.com/video/Mr-Tree-This-gets-a-10-on-the-weird-O-meter

I think there's precedent for this sort of thing.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'll have you know that my semen contains more sugar that skittles!
>> ^hpqp:

Little known fact: skittles taste better than cum.

>> ^dag:

Not a single Facebook like. No one wants to share with their mom. Maybe this is why Facebook will fail.


Now there are 64 likes! Nice proliferation on this one

Sorry, what? Did you mean to quote me here?

>> ^aaronfr:

That's a lot of backwards logic.
Lack of evidence in the two most relevant contexts = evidence of the validity of your claim?
I smell a troll.
>> ^budzos:
>> ^messenger:
None of those things appeared here at all until you brought them up.>> ^budzos:
There's too much goddamn focus on hoodies, skittles, and iced tea.

Yeah. I didn't say they did. I'm sure if you watched this entire TYT broadcast it would have been mentioned.

That's a lot of backwards logic.

Lack of evidence in the two most relevant contexts = evidence of the validity of your claim?

I smell a troll.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^messenger:
None of those things appeared here at all until you brought them up.>> ^budzos:
There's too much goddamn focus on hoodies, skittles, and iced tea.

Yeah. I didn't say they did. I'm sure if you watched this entire TYT broadcast it would have been mentioned.