I’m confused.
So, Mexico WON’T be paying for the wall…
And they WILL be paid billions by American gun manufacturers?
That’s quite the switcherooooooooo
6 Likes
You do have to connect the dots, but in the right cases it can and has been done over and over and over again. The article makes it clear that the Mexican government is working hard to establish that executives in the gun industry know that their efforts will result in Mexican criminals obtaining weapons.
5 Likes
I think we’d have to differentiate people who’ve used those guns from people fleeing their use.
5 Likes
@darrtown, seems like when you leave the states you find tanks and guns. May be best if you stay in country. Glad you’re still with us!
4 Likes
The Sackler family is trying to use their corporate bankruptcy to duck personal responsiblity. That doesn’t mean they don’t have personal responsibility for knowingly destroying much of two generations of Americans for fun and profit.
2 Likes
I’ve had students in my classes who have moved to the US from a couple of different places in Mexico. They’d grown up in them; their families had been in those towns for generations.
And then the cartels moved in.
16 Likes
In Chiapas, on the border with Guatemala, folks from elsewhere in Central America… making it through the rain forest and across the Usumacinta river into Mexico were locally termed “dry backs”.
4 Likes
The “in good faith” part is where things need to be defined more succinctly. You intentionally put out a product that harms people, does not seem to be any kind of good faith.
1 Like
The good faith requirement is with respect to the business, not the general public.
1 Like
Every day I grab my phone hoping to read of that foretold debilitating stroke in tfg’s near future…
(SIGH)
6 Likes
You went were I was going. At what point is the law protecting criminal behavior? But that’s really nothing new. When the rich write laws, the rich get away with everything.
1 Like
Criminal liability and civil liability are two different kettles of fish.
6 Likes
That’s the level you have to reach before you can attach personal liability to the officers and directors. The tobacco industry knowingly destroyed more than two generations of Americans for profit and no officer or director has ever been held personally liable. And in the case of US gun manufacturers you have to get through the 2nd Amendment before you can even impose corporate liability.
2 Likes
So Mexico may well succeed where the US has failed to act.
I’m not surprised, I suppose, that legislation was written, argued and passed that protects the industry from any injury or wrongdoing.
Anyone wants to know how influential the now-dying NRA is, here’s your sign.
2 Likes
Maybe they will use the proceeds to properly employ their citizens and stop the gangs from running their country so we don’t have the oft-complained-of border crossing issue.
1 Like
I’m just wondering if the Canadian government is listening. 
3 Likes
You have to keep that dream alive. 
2 Likes
Having lived in Mexico and seen corruption first hand… well in the same room but was not part of it, corruption and graft are an endemic thing. And 54 years living within 50 miles of that border just confirms it
5 Likes
The problem with the corporate veil is that it is not the corporation that does the bad thing, it’s the people who own and run the corporation. The company, an entity on paper, doesn’t act; the executive officers do the actions, make the decisions. The executives of cigarette manufacturers still kill half a million people a year. Why are they protected? And so on. Ever wonder how many of those people sitting behind the big desks in the executive suites are functioning psychopaths?
7 Likes
6 Likes