Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

It's about gangs of masked thugs starting riots and attacking people.

All of those things are already a violation of the law.

So it appears this is about targeting specific people or groups.

They admit it in the short title of the proposed legislation.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

then you should make a sign and let someone know how you feel.

Sure. I'll do that and probably end up on a list of people/groups that need to be targeted by politicians that disagree with me.

I'm a bit surprised that you support the government targeting specific groups.

you are surprised I am against those who would hurt others? do you even understand your position here?

Let them wear a mask.

This would give a CCW holder or business owner that felt threatened a reason to blow holes in them.

The CCW holder or business owner could then claim he thought they were criminals out to hurt or rob him and many juries would acquit him.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

then you should make a sign and let someone know how you feel.

Sure. I'll do that and probably end up on a list of people/groups that need to be targeted by politicians that disagree with me.

I'm a bit surprised that you support the government targeting specific groups.

you are surprised I am against those who would hurt others? do you even understand your position here?

I completely understand. You support legislation based on the targeting of specific people or groups, for doing things that are already against the law.

As a "conservative", do you support more laws being put in place, even though the acts mentioned are already against the law?

a reply to: toms54

While my knee-jerk reaction is to embrace this bill, my legal mind tells me that this is a law that could easily get abused by law enforcement in many different situations.

Some people would simply claim that the presence of a masked group of people, who may just be standing there doing nothing illegal, is "intimidating," therefore giving possible cause for the arrest of these people.

I abhor--with a capital ABHOR--the tactics of Antifa and groups like them (from all sides), but I'm not sure that such a federal law is a good thing.

a reply to: ANNED

I'm against violence, so shooting them isn't a very good option either. Which is why making it especially illegal to wear a mask and hurt others during a protest seems like a good idea. Remember, this law applies to everyone, so staunch republicans are included in the group of people who aren't allowed to don a mask and hurt others.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If they're actively participating in a riot, they're not going to get much sympathy from me. That being said, again, further refinement of this law may well be necessary, including a definition of what constitutes a 'mask' or 'disguise' for purposes of prosecution under this proposal.

a reply to: toms54

Soooo...

More laws that will do nothing that isn't already covered by laws and statutes already out there?

Well, I feel safer already.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

then you should make a sign and let someone know how you feel.

Sure. I'll do that and probably end up on a list of people/groups that need to be targeted by politicians that disagree with me.

I'm a bit surprised that you support the government targeting specific groups.

you are surprised I am against those who would hurt others? do you even understand your position here?

I completely understand. You support legislation based on the targeting of specific people or groups, for doing things that are already against the law.

As a "conservative", do you support more laws being put in place, even though the acts mentioned are already against the law?

Perhaps it's time to take a good look inward and realize why you feel this law is targeting a specific group. Perhaps there is something to the accusations that Antifa is largely a bunch of thugs.

a reply to: network dude

SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH PROTECTED RIGHTS WHILE IN DISGUISE. (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 249 the following: ``Sec. 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise ``(a) In General.--Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

That's a pretty broad law that pretty much gives law enforcement justification for arresting anyone that is concealing their identity in any way or form.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

It's about gangs of masked thugs starting riots and attacking people.

All of those things are already a violation of the law.

So it appears this is about targeting specific people or groups.

They admit it in the short title of the proposed legislation.

Yea. Antifa are the ones doing it. They're not going to call it Unmasking Girl Scouts Act of 2018 because Antifa are the ones doing this.

If they renamed this same law Unmasking KKK Act of 2018, would you support it then?

a reply to: network dude

Perhaps it's time to take a good look inward and realize why you feel this law is targeting a specific group.

Why look inward? They admit it in the short name of the legislation as to their intended target.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018''.

www.congress.gov...

Perhaps there is something to the accusations that Antifa is largely a bunch of thugs.

So you find it acceptable for the government to target, or intend to target, specific groups for things that are already against the law?

Perhaps you need to look inward and find that "conservativism"...if it's even in there.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

It's about gangs of masked thugs starting riots and attacking people.

All of those things are already a violation of the law.

So it appears this is about targeting specific people or groups.

They admit it in the short title of the proposed legislation.

Yea. Antifa are the ones doing it. They're not going to call it Unmasking Girl Scouts Act of 2018 because Antifa are the ones doing this.

If they renamed this same law Unmasking KKK Act of 2018, would you support it then?

No. I do not believe in targeting specific groups of people, even if I disagree with them, with redundant laws for things that are already illegal.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States

this part kind of spells it out, does it not?

a reply to: network dude

They are, indeed, a bunch of thugs...or many of them are.

But what, in this law, isn't already covered by laws already on the books?

Specific groups being targeted in something we should be a lot more uncomfortable with.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

it's not about wearing a mask, it's about wearing a mask AND CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS.

I disagree.

Wearing a mask in public is already against the law in certain areas/circumstances.

Causing harm to others is already a crime.

This is about people using their position in government to go after political opponents.

It's about gangs of masked thugs starting riots and attacking people.

All of those things are already a violation of the law.

So it appears this is about targeting specific people or groups.

They admit it in the short title of the proposed legislation.

Yea. Antifa are the ones doing it. They're not going to call it Unmasking Girl Scouts Act of 2018 because Antifa are the ones doing this.

If they renamed this same law Unmasking KKK Act of 2018, would you support it then?

No. I do not believe in targeting specific groups of people, even if I disagree with them, with redundant laws for things that are already illegal.

but isn't that what you do here on a daily basis? You find threads where others (Trump supporters) exist and you take the opposing side, always. That sure seems like targeting a specific group of people. At least admit it, it's not wrong.

Well, now the guy on my other shoulder is talking ...

Wearing a pair of sunglasses could be considered as concealing the face.

Intimidation could be "that man over there is intimidating me."

Hmmm ... yeah. This is far too broad in scope to be a Federal law.

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420

I hope this passes. It's time to get these masked thugs off of our streets.

a reply to: toms54

you do realize most of the police in the line against the protesters also wear masks, so do SWAT team. (Like criminals and cowards if you ask me)

You mean the ones with their names fully identified on their helmets and flak vests? Those police?

a reply to: network dude

but isn't that what you do here on a daily basis? You find threads where others (Trump supporters) exist and you take the opposing side, always.

Always? Even though I side with you on 2nd amendment issues and such?

I think you are being a drama queen for the lack of a better, decent argument.

That sure seems like targeting a specific group of people.

Voicing my opinion or disagreement is not targeting a specific group.

That being said, it must be noted how you are deflecting attention from your illogical position on to the ad homs towards me.

At least admit it, it's not wrong.

I'm not wrong. You are and I gave you an example above of how you made an incorrect statement.

a reply to: network dude

What's the definition of intimidate? What's the definition of threaten? For example, as the law is written, a Daily Stormer member posting about killing Jews under an anonymous username would be guilty under this law as he is both concealing his identity and threatening others.

That's been my main issue with this law from the start. It's too broad in its wording and too draconian in its punishment. It's just looking to be abused by the government.