Hold Well-Fargo responsible for pipeline spills?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by berettaprofessor, Mar 14, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Member

    Mar 25, 2008
    Hear me out, fellow THR’s, and keep the linked story below in mind while staying out of the politics. Essentially, it’s a report of A US representative questioning the Wells Fargo CEO and suggesting the bank should be held responsible if there was a spill from the Dakota pipeline. His response was that they don’t operate the pipeline, they just financed it. There are other similar arguments for other industries in the article. And my point in posting is that we need to support all these arguments because I believe they also apply to the liability of gun manufacturers and sellersin episodes of criminal use of guns. The more people who agree with the Wells-Fargo CEO, the more who will see the logical application to firearms.


    , please, any discussion here, let’s not get into the politics; I don’t care who said it and what political party is for or against. We don’t need this thread locked before it starts.
  2. Catcar67

    Catcar67 Member

    Jan 3, 2019
    In our current society "lawsuit" it one of the most popular words. People don't want to be held responsible for their actions. If you cut your finger while peeling a potatoe, should you file a lawsuit against U.S. Steel for making the steel that was used to make the blade? Too many people are looking for any type of free ride.
    tommy.duncan and milemaker13 like this.
  3. bbqreloader
    • Contributing Member

    bbqreloader Contributing Member

    Jan 5, 2016
    theory of deepest pockets.....$$$
    Nicky Santoro and medalguy like this.
  4. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Feb 27, 2009
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Well, let's see. Banks exist to take other peoples' money and hold that same secure. When they lend that money out, they have a legal, moral, and ethical responsibility to insure that the borrowers are in a position to repay those borrowed sums with interest.

    There is a further complication in that, a lending institution which fails to lend money to those capable of repaying with interest are acting against the collective interest of the depositors. After all, why would a person deposit their money in a bank which paid no interest on those funds?

    So, a bank, in the purest sense does not exist to make moral judgements on the "what" a borrowed sum is for, their primary judgement must be on whether such a loan will be paid back without complications. There is some component of whether controversy will prevent full repayment of loans. And another in that financing criminal endeavors is generally frowned upon.

    However, fiduciary responsibility does not include coming to unsupportable conclusions or imagined political issues--see financial responsibilities to depositors, above.

    All that being said, I found the Hyhen's blathering, conflating financing with ownership near nigh hilarious. Really, at the level of Eco-hysteria being evoked, the usual suspects need to harangue all the companies invested in concrete batch plants, as those are, apparently entirely awful in every eco aspect.

    This level of dissonance does seem to be deliberate. If WF can be held responsible for pipeline leaks on a pipeling they merely financed (not built nor operated), then all sorts of things are possible. LIke forcing banks to not allow the purchase of firearms. Or of ammo. Or of forcing them to conduct background checks before allowing purchases.

    It is a death to freedom and liberty.
    10mm Mike, Twiki357 and Charlie Horse like this.
  5. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Sep 30, 2005
    You said it twice but you simply can’t. Is he any more at fault than the pipe fitters that welded it together or the truck drivers that drove the supplies to the site or are they all complicit in the conspiracy (sorry but that’s the kind of words they would use)?

    If it wasn’t political Cortez would be going after the people that actually did the work vs some bank that funded it. Who knows she could even go after the Government for the crimes people on welfare commit, don’t hold your breath though...
  6. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Jun 7, 2006
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    I'm closing this because the story referenced has nothing to do with firearms and the discussion there of would lead us down some off topic rabbit trials. However, it's was just announced that the Sandy Hook families can sue Remington for making a rifle, so if you wanted to start a new thread on that topic, it would be ok.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice