Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

originally posted by: seagull
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.

I see it as a way to stop a group of people from doning masks and hurting others, then taking off the masks and blending in with the crowd. Which is how this group does business. I don't have a say so in the law, and I may be wrong in my thinking, but even if it was a group of conservatives wearing masks and hitting liberals with bike locks, I'd want to see them punished.

I feel the same way about the clan. They hide behind their masks so nobody knows who is behind the hate. And I am not a great person, let alone a great conservative. It's just that I know my limitations. If it could be easy to catch those who start riots, then none of this would be nessecary, masks or no masks, the thugs would be dealt with. Unfortunately, when they hide behind a mask, they are more likely to get away with it. (IMHO)

originally posted by: JHumm
I just want to know why protesters that get violent and end up in a riot usually tear up their own neighborhoods.
Doesn't that just make life worse for them when over?
Why destroy your own home when you're mad at someone else?

And when the government is there to monitor the situation aren't most of the police wearing masks?

Usually the folks inciting violence aren’t from the areas where they’re inciting said violence. Antifa has a tactic of bussing their most violent around the country to where they think they can cause the most anarchy. While they hide behind the Antifa moniker, they are actually anarchists, as proven by their actions under their banner.

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.

They are not targeting people. They are targeting criminals. Are you also against targeting killers and bank robbers? They're people. They are targeting criminals who are engaged in criminal acts not just people wearing masks. Seriously, read the bill. It's not that long. And stop using 3rd grade logic in your posts.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

then perhaps instead of this law, we have special task forces at rallies and protests who snatch up anyone who starts violence and puts them in jail. There are already laws for it, we just need to enforce them with a ZERO TOLERANCE approach. Would you agree to that?

a reply to: toms54

They are not targeting people. They are targeting criminals.

Even criminals are people, correct?

Are you also against targeting killers and bank robbers? They're people. They are targeting criminals who are engaged in criminal acts not just people wearing masks.

They intend to target specific groups of people, which they specifically name in the short title, for things that are already against the law.

Seriously, read the bill. It's not that long. And stop using 3rd grade logic in your posts.

Perhaps you need to read your own post. Even a third graded knows that criminals are still people.

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: toms54

I hope so too. If you want to protest, do it peacefully. Otherwise, go to jail. Something everyone can agree on.

Although I agree with that in general, would the United States even exist if our founders only protested peacefully?

That wasn't just a protest, it was an open rebellion.

a reply to: network dude

If they want to enforce the laws that are already on the books I'm fine with that. While Antifa may be a natural reaction to an increasingly militarized police force, they are still breaking the law.

But there's no reason for a law that's spiteful right down to its very name and will do nothing other than strip even more liberties from us.

a reply to: CharlesT

But isn't a rebellion just a large scale protest in essence? Even then you could argue that a lot of the support the Colonials had stemmed from the events leading up to all out war. Like the Boston Tea Party or the Boston Massacre. One could posit that if it weren't for those events the Founding Fathers wouldn't have had the support to stand against the Red Coats.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

It's funny how it's always the side that says we need the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves from a corrupt government is the same side that demands protests against a corrupt government be peaceful.

There is a difference between protester and rebel, peaceful protests and revolutions... do u fail to grasp that?

If they want to be revolutionaries, they should have the balls to claim that title and not hide behind the term “protester”

a reply to: network dude

The people causing the rise in violence should be prosecuted and far more action should be taken terms of policing (seem barely present or keeping quite a distance away from emerging/ongoing violence in most vids) but this law is pretty useless - If the US version of AntiFA renamed themselves they'd escape the proposals, plus clear up the confusion between how AntiFA acts and behaves in the US vs the rest of the World.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I would hope a prosecutor or the jury would have a little common sense.

Ahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahaha whooo that got my laugh in for the day.

originally posted by: toms54

The “Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018,” legislation introduced in the House, carries a potential 15-year prison sentence for those caught engaging in behaviors typically associated with the “antifa” movement of anti-fascist activists. Under the act, anyone “wearing a mask” or in disguise who “injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege” would be subject to a fine or up to 15 years in prison. The bill was introduced in the House last month... The bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.

TheHill.com
Congress.gov

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

I may not agree with these “Antifa” groups but the day some official tells me I can not wear a mask is the day I tell them to remove the badge and then we can talk. The 1st is pretty clear and very basic for this reason. As long as you are not infringing on others rights than you have nothing to worry about. If I walk out of my office wearing a mask I will get stopped. But if I am just going to the Taco truck and not causing anyone harm then TPTB can suck it. I know my rights. Give them a crumb and there goes the cookie. Don’t be a fool and fall into this trap. Think people!!!

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Anti-mask laws have been around since the late 1800s and before.

However, I admire your "thumb in the eye" stance on TPTB.

Give 'em hell. LOL.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

perhaps I am missing something big, but I was under the impression this has to do with wearing masks AND hurting others.
is that not the case?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

It's funny how it's always the side that says we need the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves from a corrupt government is the same side that demands protests against a corrupt government be peaceful.

It's funny people refuse to read that first amendment.

Coz it says EXACTLY JACK SNIP about protesting fellow neighbors or presidential candidates, or private citizens PUBLICLY speaking at college campus's.

The STATE is corrupt. No doubt.

THE PEOPLE are corrupt, and have corrupted a fundamental principle of the REPUBLIC.

PEACEABLE assembly. Doesn't mean the willful,wanting destruction of public and private property.

Nor is it a license to act like thugs.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Allaroundyou

perhaps I am missing something big, but I was under the impression this has to do with wearing masks AND hurting others.
is that not the case?

You are right. I got all heated up because of my 1st. I guess I was sorta off topic. My bad

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Allaroundyou

perhaps I am missing something big, but I was under the impression this has to do with wearing masks AND hurting others.
is that not the case?

You are right. I got all heated up because of my 1st. I guess I was sorta off topic. My bad

no worries, I just wanted to be sure I didn't spend 6 pages arguing the wrong point.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Being arrested is not being smacked upside the head with a stick or sign from a
"peaceful protestor". When you "make a threat with your online comment, then it needs to be addressed" Calling one a dumb arse is not a threat. If you believe so much in your cause.....drop the mask and show me your face. I'll believe you a hell of a lot more and give more credence where it's due.

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.

Dig. Since they're a hate group of the violent extremist variety, just set the FBI on them like all the other ones.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy

I see your point, but this isn't about people just wearing masks, it's about them doing it to hide their identity while they hurt others. It takes a real pussy to hide his face, take part in a mob beating he likely started, then be able to scurry off and not be recognized because he was wearing a mask.

I don't think this law can go after anyone for just having an obscured face.

Yet this law will allow police to go after anyone with an obscured face.