Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"News for nerds??" (Score 1) 934

Ah, libtard idiocy. The rulings said that being composed of people, they had some of the same rights. For that matter, I don't think I've heard of any laws limiting corporation security forces to weapons any crappier than most civilians. In fact, in most jurisdictions, especially bastions of libtard idiocy, they have more rights to weapons than the average civilian.

Comment: Re:guns up/crime down in Chicago (Score 1) 934

Well, no, it's because the only studies done by the CDC were shoddier than a shed built by a cross-eyed one-armed carpenter without measuring tools. The reason for this is because the CDC has a prior anti-gun bias and so kept hiring that dickcheese Kellerman to perform the studies. Kellerman sucks at even performing studies that at least have the surface appearance of being unbiased and is always immediately ripped apart as soon as his methodology becomes known.

Comment: Re:hold it (Score 2) 934

Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.

Comment: Re:Gun control (Score 1) 934

Sorry, but between 1934 and 1986 there were no mass killings with full-auto weapons by civilians. Several by people in law enforcement, but no civilians. To get one you merely needed a background check ensuring your lack of felonious nature and a tax stamp. The only reason full-auto weapons are currently banned is because Charles Rangel(D) is a corrupt son of a bitch and SCOTUS are a bunch of fucking hypocrites to allow the bootstrapping of the ban to continue.

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow