Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Hitting someone with a bike lock is already a crime. Why do we need to tack on another 15 years (which is probably more time than they would get for just hitting someone with a bike lock) because they were wearing a mask?

Let me ask you a question, what are your views on hate crimes?

So I am guessing that increasing the fine for a crime being repeated too much is not ok with you. The fact that you can't tell who did it is the whole point of UNMASKING them so they CAN be arrested later. The LEO's normally would like to do that without having to wade into bike locks or having to use deadly force to make them stop.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DJW001

Yawn. Let me know when Trump has his 3rd and 4th term.

If Trump gets a second term, there will be no more ATS.

yawn care to provide PROOF of this djw001 ?

oh thats right you dont need proof, its trump so your statement cannot be questioned because its fact
(sarcasm)

if you want to remotely for this statement not to be mocked for the stupidity it portrays proof first please.

scrounger

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

Except there is zero link between the two. One is an exercise in free speech, the other is PREVENTING the exercise in free speech.

So should I be able to hide my identity in order to delete any and all posts that I disagree with preventing you from ever saying anything online ever again?

Antifa isn't preventing any speech, they're just protesting.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

Except there is zero link between the two. One is an exercise in free speech, the other is PREVENTING the exercise in free speech.

So should I be able to hide my identity in order to delete any and all posts that I disagree with preventing you from ever saying anything online ever again?

Antifa isn't preventing any speech, they're just protesting.

hmm bombs, hitting with bike locks, assaulting those dont agree with them

sir your idea of just protesting and reality are very different.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Why do you draw a distinction between physical and digital in regards to the first amendment? Do you have similar views with the second or fourth?

a reply to: scrounger

Well I doubt all are doing that, same as all trump supporters aren’t white supremacists.

Anyone doing the above though, antifa or not should be locked up.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

Except there is zero link between the two. One is an exercise in free speech, the other is PREVENTING the exercise in free speech.

So should I be able to hide my identity in order to delete any and all posts that I disagree with preventing you from ever saying anything online ever again?

Antifa isn't preventing any speech, they're just protesting.

False. They shut down colleges when speakers they don't like will be speaking. They attack people with weapons to break up their protest. They throw smoke bombs at them.

They prevent LAWFUL free speech protest.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Exactly. ANYONE doing this should be locked up.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

As I said, I don't 100% agree with antifa's tactics. At the same time though we shouldn't really be surprised at their emergence. The past few decades have shown that all peaceful protest gets you is a boot on the back of your neck.

So now that people are standing up to such corruption the government wants everyone to play nice? Absolutely laughable.

I certainly don't want to see innocent people get hurt. But the government demanding peace when they've been responding with violence is hypocritical at best.

Peaceful protests. Interesting.

When does peaceful protesting include "occupying" anything. Be it a building, a bridge, or a road?

The simple truth is, a peaceful protest, is standing to the side, holding signs, screaming, whatever you want, but NOT interfering with others.

It's not the protest that got Occupy in trouble it was encampments, when that is clearly illegal, and not within the right to protest.

The other simple truth is, that peaceful protests are easy to ignore by those who don't care (their right) and so they take it to another level in an attempt to say "hey look at me!!" and it backfires. Only those in their own sphere applaud it. Everyday Americans get angry.

Not how you win support or influence change.

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

Except there is zero link between the two. One is an exercise in free speech, the other is PREVENTING the exercise in free speech.

So should I be able to hide my identity in order to delete any and all posts that I disagree with preventing you from ever saying anything online ever again?

Antifa isn't preventing any speech, they're just protesting.

hmm bombs, hitting with bike locks, assaulting those dont agree with them

sir your idea of just protesting and reality are very different.

scrounger

Really? Care to show me where there's an epidemic of Antifa using bombs in the US? I've heard nothing about that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: toms54

Antifa thug beats a guy, cops catch him.

Antifa thug (wearing a mask) beats a guy, cops catch him.


Different sentences for the same act?

So we're not punishing the act so much as how the person appears during the act.

How about this one.

Entire group commits heinous acts against others in public while hiding their identity and get away from being caught there but we have lots of camera angles with no way to discern who they are.

Why would we not want people to know they will be seen in public or arrested for the crime and like the crime at school while carrying a weapon increases the sentence severity?

Make them show their faces seems the only answer. We need to know who is doing this more than they deserve anonymity.

Trick or Treat stuff is not going to be different and is one big deflection to even go there.

Peaceful anti government protesting.

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.

If our second amendment rights hadn't been eroded/diminished/limited so much we could protest armed and I guarantee the Antifa thugs wouldn't be a problem.

Taking away rights has a way of impacting other rights. My position is reinstate our full rights back the way they were written, but I am sure some are against that.

a reply to: scrounger

yawn care to provide PROOF of this djw001 ?

One of the major themes of Trump's campaign has been control of the media. He cannot abide news that makes him look bad, and accuses journalists who report accurately on him of being liars and "fake news." He has intensified the search for "leakers," that is, people who inform the public about activities he wishes to keep hidden. He has expressed his admiration for North Korea's state propaganda. "When Kim talks, his people sit at attention." Trump has already taken the first steps in that direction. By repealing "net neutrality," internet traffic can be routed selectively... in other words, censored by the corporate internet service providers.

ATS is a conspiracy site dedicated to exposing government wrong-doing. It is a veritable fount of "fake news." In the growing totalitarian society, websites like ATS will be considered "enemies of the people." Open your eyes. We are in the midst of a coup. A president without a popular mandate has packed his cabinet full of generals and military industrial complex shills. Congress is controlled by his party, and they have been covering up for him. A Supreme Court judge with connections to Trump's banker chooses to retire, allowing Trump to nominate a judge who has expressed the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If our second amendment rights hadn't been eroded/diminished/limited so much we could protest armed and I guarantee the Antifa thugs wouldn't be a problem.

When did you ever have a "right" to kill people you disagree with?

Taking away rights has a way of impacting other rights. My position is reinstate our full rights back the way they were written, but I am sure some are against that.

I am all in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment as written. You need to serve in the militia in order to have military weapons. But that's not what you think it says.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Peaceful anti government protesting.

Serves the SOB right.

a reply to: toms54
thus begins the nation's first anti-superhero vigilante act. Time to sell those spandex stocks.

originally posted by: skynet2015
a reply to: toms54
thus begins the nation's first anti-superhero vigilante act. Time to sell those spandex stocks.

Antifa are superheroes? You must live in a comic book.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think you brought up a great point

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

The past few decades have shown that all peaceful protest gets you is a boot on the back of your neck.

Can i have some examples of peacful protests being squashed by jackboots, and lets not include any "Occupy (whatever)" groups because those people were not protesters, thay had no clear objective no one issue, you cant claim that every form of protest is acceptable, especially if it doesnt have a clear message after a while it becomes something not unlike the Westboro baptists, just an annoyance and do we really want people making decisions just because theyre annoyed.

At least the Westboro peeps show their face and keep their hands to themselves. They're message is fu©€d but at least they know how to protest within the law.

If you want to be an anarchist be an artist but don't try to use protest laws in your defense when you don't give a rats behind about the laws. All ir nothing, then people cant call you out for just being menaces, which is really what most Anti-Fa are, cant we all agree on that...