Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: toms54


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.

Hmmmmm...

And does the bill define "oppress" or "intimidate"?

You mean like law enforcement and the military being armed in areas / countries with the strictest of laws concerning gun control? Why would law enforcement wearing face protection be a problem?

a reply to: GenerationGap

One of the most well known acts of protest in the Colonial era, the Boston Tea Party, was done in the dead of night so the participants wouldn't be identified. They even wore disguises.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: toms54


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.

Hmmmmm...

And does the bill define "oppress" or "intimidate"?

You mean like law enforcement and the military being armed in areas / countries with the strictest of laws concerning gun control? Why would law enforcement wearing face protection be a problem?

Hey, it's not my idiotic bill..

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.

Define anyone?
Define intimidate?
Define Oppresses?

The presence of armed, masked officers barking commands to protestors would easily fall under this law.

All of those questions before even addressing the constitutionality of a law that is targeted toward a single political movement or party.

It is third world dictator nonsense. It is trash. It is a profoundly UNAMERICAN bill.
Those who proposed it should be run out of congress.

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 also funny that it's always the same side that says everyone should have a voice yet when the people they don't agree with start voicing their opinions, they want to put masks on a beat them on the head with locks and sticks.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Hey, it's not my idiotic bill..

Like the picture you posted with law enforcement wearing visible name tags and unit IDs vs hooligans trying to obscure all forms of possible identification?

And you didn’t answer:

You mean like law enforcement and the military being armed in areas / countries with the strictest of laws concerning gun control? Why would law enforcement wearing face protection be a problem?

a reply to: soberbacchus

In the USA, is it false the gear you are worried about is root gear used to push back out of control groups while offering law enforcement protect from thrown rocks and bottles. Law enforcement in the USA practices more restrain than most countries.

Where Antifa seeks to intimidate individuals that are targets of opportunity.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Peaceful anti government protesting.

I saw a thing the other day that the other day some Antifa person hit another person with a bike lock... again.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Anytime a new law is made, it’s limiting some freedom or another. Does this apply to fights at Halloween parties too? Is assault by already illegal? What is the purpose of this bill? Assault is illegal, and we really mean it this time? I say we take the power away from congress, who make laws behind their fences and security details, and give it back to the people who actually have to deal with these situations. Once again, it should be made legal to use deadly force on these people. I bet Eric Clanton would have thought twice about bringing that bike lock if he knew that Joe Schmoe could legally blast him away with a .45 for using it.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why is a mask a problem when people are allowed to open carry large magazine firearms?

Other than the fact I agree with the bill, my main issue is the logical contradiction that the main reason they wear masks is to protect their face. Most likely from pepper spray, something I also am now having mixed feelings about.

You know how much that mask matters when the boys in blue curb stomp him and place him into the car and finger print him and strip him naked? I means #ing nothing, it doesn't protect his face, it doesn't protect his identity, nothing.

The people that initially started riots against antifa are completely to blame for the slow rotation of justice that is now coming to them, but we have successfully thrown away general freedoms like masks as a cost to that, great. It will be only minutes from the passing of this bill some alt-right nut attempts to patronize a mulism in a burka claiming it to be a 'antfi-mask' and I'm just not prepared for the level of bull# this leads to with the right, while at the same time happy to see 'antifa' sit the # down.

originally posted by: KatWouldKillYou
a reply to: neutronflux

Why is a mask a problem when people are allowed to open carry large magazine firearms?

Other than the fact I agree with the bill, my main issue is the logical contradiction that the main reason they wear masks is to protect their face. Most likely from pepper spray, something I also am now having mixed feelings about.

You know how much that mask matters when the boys in blue curb stomp him and place him into the car and finger print him and strip him naked? I means #ing nothing, it doesn't protect his face, it doesn't protect his identity, nothing.

The people that initially started riots against antifa are completely to blame for the slow rotation of justice that is now coming to them, but we have successfully thrown away general freedoms like masks as a cost to that, great. It will be only minutes from the passing of this bill some alt-right nut attempts to patronize a mulism in a burka claiming it to be a 'antfi-mask' and I'm just not prepared for the level of bull# this leads to with the right, while at the same time happy to see 'antifa' sit the # down.

Fakse argument. How does a handkerchief and no goggles protect from pepper spray?
Especially in the context that Antifa will result to hitting and swatting to prevent from being videoed with their masks removed.

Again, there is a huge difference with law enforcement wearing name tags, unit patches, dispatched from known precincts, tolerating being videoed, and a growing movement to wear body cams. Law enforcement donning appropriate protective gear in response to a mob.

Versus Antifa that tries to hide the aspects of their identities, wearing gear that offers no protection, and uses physical force to try and prevent from being videoed with there masks off. While engaging in mob action and riots.

a reply to: KatWouldKillYou

Bottom line, Antifa wants to be the secret police of SJW and enforcers of PC. Is that a false statement?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Poofmander

Antifa is not anarchists.

But the only way to push progressive ideas is by intimidation?

It worked for the TP, turnabout is fair play.

That's where politics is in the US now.

originally posted by: chibsonguitarplayer
Enough is enough. Let's fight fire with fire and start a 'Profa' movement ;-)

We did, it's called the Tea Party.

originally posted by: GenerationGap

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?

Errhrmmm... Our founders didn't wear masks. Our founders openly, and rightly, declared open rebellion. They did this publicly in one of the most read documents in the history of the world; the American Declaration of Independence.

When you know your cause is just, you pledge you life, wealth, and honor to it. When you know your cause is just reactionary and antagonzing, you wear a mask.

No they didn't. The vast majority of pre Revolution writing was done under pen names, especially anything provocative. Real names weren't used until after the shooting started.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gryphon66

Depending on how the law is phrased it could very easily accelerate it. If the definition of disguise is loose enough it could very easily do applied to the digital realm. At which point it's only a matter of time before someone is facing 15 years for saying something mean on the internet.

It's been established for about 150 years in the US that wearing a mask in public can be a matter of intimidation. Yes, I can see how government could use this to suppress unfairly, and we should be constantly vigiliant about the erosion of freedoms.

Wait but the kkk has done worse and has been around longer why is antifa being targeted when we have a hate group that use to lynch people.
This is a lose lose regardless of what side you are on limiting how you protest means there’s gonna be more laws limiting what you can or can’t say/do after this.

a reply to: DJW001

That's disgusting.

I can't believe that your post hasn't been removed yet.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: GenerationGap

One of the most well known acts of protest in the Colonial era, the Boston Tea Party, was done in the dead of night so the participants wouldn't be identified. They even wore disguises.

That was a act of sabotage and assault and battery by todays standards on the guards watching the ships and then felonious destruction of private property. That was no protest at all.

a reply to: toms54

Excellent.

This isn't nearly as far as I'd like to see the laws go against antifa type thuggery/violence/terrorism. But it sure is a start.

Existing laws specifically permit self defense against an attacking mob. In most states, this is known as a "disparity of force."

Glad to see the root of the problem finally being addressed.

a reply to: yuppa

Yes, except we were morally right (a people righteously fighting for freedom/liberty) while antifa goons are squarely in the wrong.

antifa is unwanted, unnecessary and clearly only lashing out in anger at a political party they merely dislike. All their other fluff is just that: nonsensical irrational fluff. We don't want their solutions. We don't need their mob street violence. We certainly don't want their incorrect political ideology.

To be perfectly frank, I'd prefer they all packed their bags tonight and got the h### out of my beautiful country. Let them go live as an illegal alien in another country and see how many morons there come to their defense (hint: very few to zero, depending on the country).

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: yuppa

Yes, except we were morally right (a people righteously fighting for freedom/liberty) while antifa goons are squarely in the wrong.

antifa is unwanted, unnecessary and clearly only lashing out in anger at a political party they merely dislike. All their other fluff is just that: nonsensical irrational fluff. We don't want their solutions. We don't need their mob street violence. We certainly don't want their incorrect political ideology.

To be perfectly frank, I'd prefer they all packed their bags tonight and got the h### out of my beautiful country. Let them go live as an illegal alien in another country and see how many morons there come to their defense (hint: very few to zero, depending on the country).

It's in their name, anti-fascists.

We have a fascist government.

It should be no surprise they're speaking up.