You have no idea what you are talking about. When a company declares bankruptcy all the assets (Trademarks and other IP, buildings, equipment, etc) are sold and the proceeds go to pay the creditors (Bond holders, retirees, etc) if there is anything left, and there rarely is in bankruptcy, the shareholders get it.

The idea that a corporation would intentionally declare bankruptcy to get out of obligations is completely ridiculous. Is it that hard to understand that the current company selling Hostess products is a completely different company than the old one and that the owners of the old company got nothing?

Exactly! Could I borrow a few billion dollars?

I would argue that the correct reading of the second amendment says that the individual has the right to posses any weapon, SAMs, grenades, flamethrowers, tanks and nuclear weapons included.

Why people have to be dishonest and say there must be exceptions because no one could imagine these new weapons I will never understand. Want to change the constitution? That's what constitutional amendments are for. Instead all three branches of the government ignore and re-imagine the constitution as they see fit.

What if the rapee was the one with the non working gun?

If the company owned the batteries and you just rented them it would work. Combined with some sort of standardized battery and automated swapping system it sounds relatively fast and easy to me.

The efficiency of the average power plant isn't much better.

Yeah, someone someday is going to be killed by a printed gun. All those things you listed will probably happen someday. It's regrettable, but what's you point??

Try is the keyword. The whole point of what this guy is doing is to show the futility of trying to stop it. Sure people will probably die but how can it be stopped? You can't stop home made guns anymore than you can stop pressure cookers filled with fireworks.

And your comment is typical of those who fail to grasp the negative consequences of trying and failing to make the world a safe utopia. Medical testing is a great example. If I'm dying of a terminal disease I want to be able to take experimental drugs. Sure I might have an averse reaction and die a horrific death but it should be my choice to take that risk. The decades of testing drugs must go through before anyone is allowed to take them is a travesty.

Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So explosives should be legal?

Since when do people need the government to tell them whether it's safe to go outside or not? In any of those examples people can decide for themselves whether it's safe or not. Do you really need a bureaucrat or a committee of bureaucrats to make the decision for you?

We already do, it's called natural selection.

Try North Korea: you'll get all the government you want and a well regulated market too

No, no, no. If it's not a serious crime it just means you're not beating them hard enough!