46
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
493 readers
34 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It claims nothing of the sort.
It claims that the sheer magnitude of the transfers means that the gun manufacturers have to have some awareness of which of their distributors are providing guns to the cartels, and that they've systemstically turned a blind eye to them.
Which is not only possible but likely.
But it runs up against the fact that the powers-that-be in the US have a vested interest in the cartels getting as many guns as possible, being as violent as possible, and undermining Mexican stability as much as possible, in order to maintain US hegemony in North America.
Thus the Supreme Court's ruling, because at this point in our history, they don't work for the benefit of the people - they work for the benefit of the wealthy and empoweredl few.
The cartels get the majority of their firearms from straw purchases. No one who buys straw purchased firearms shops at the same dealers in mass quantities.