Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

a reply to: Chadwickus

We're they there to prevent someone from exercising their rights and freedoms?

If so lock em up. If not then their mask doesn't matter.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Antifa ONLY attacks property? That's a lie. And there's video proving such.
They attack symbols of globalism? They are for globalism.

I don't think you know a damn thing about Antifa.

How many ANTIFA members have you met? And just wearing a black outfit doesn't mean you are ANTIFA.

a reply to: DJW001

Not if it's true self defense.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Theosist

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Theosist

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.

Oh shut up.

ANTIFA don’t attack government officials and employees of the state. They attack any of their fellow citizens whose views on any matter from politics to basic biology contradict their Neomarxian ideology in an attempt to intimidate and deny them their freedom of speech.

You are confusing ANTIFA with the right wing. ANTIFA generally attacks property, not people. They smash ATM machines, expensive cars, and other symbols of globalism.

No, I’m definitely talking about ANTIFA. Next please.

No, you are talking about the people you think are ANTIFA.

No, I’m talking about ANTIFA.

a reply to: DJW001

To them it does, they are so blinded by spoon fed media that they don't seem to understand anything about it, and are willfully ignorant when people tell them things that don't fit their narrative

a reply to: Theosist

Sure,

Rightists are crying snowflakes on the internet wanting to create more laws

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Antifa protesters will say they were.

All I’m trying to show is that it’s not just antifa wearing masks and upsetting people.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Of course not, the Rightists and rightists extremists mask up as well, some even come in costumes

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I know there's quite a few people on this site that use a VPN. If I felt threatened or intimidated by one of them then you think they should go to prison for 15 years?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Theosist

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Theosist

No laws needed. Just allow private citizens in peaceful assemblies to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms and shoot masked thugs on sight.

No due process needed? I think you need to read the Constitution.

Due process is the police determining the act was in lawful self defence out of well-founded fear of grievous bodily harm by a masked assailant and the state declining to prosecute.

Next please.

The police do not make that determination, the courts do. Read the Constitution.

Not if no criminal charges are filed, which is usually the case in cut-and-dry cases of self-defence. That is up to the prosecutors on the evidence brought forward by the police. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Theosist

Sure,

Rightists are crying snowflakes on the internet wanting to create more laws

How does one cry snowflakes that want to create laws?

Are you dyslexic or something? Or did you just never figure out the purpose of a comma?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Antifa protesters will say they were.

All I’m trying to show is that it’s not just antifa wearing masks and upsetting people.

Antifa is just a mask people can put on when they wanna assault people and burn snip down.

a reply to: Theosist

I know the purpose...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, no, but the dog whistle sure sounds nice to the herd doesn't it?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: toms54

You should be arrested for acts of violence against another individual(s) regardless if you're wearing a mask or not.

Just wearing a mask should not be a reason for arrest.

I lean towards this too for a number of reasons.

Political protest used to be suppressed by the police. Nowadays it's more likely to be through by-laws, public order legislation and private insurance. The lawyers will do what tear gas and batons couldn't do.

As much as I hate the commie scum, I'm completely against this law.

Giving government that much power can backfire, as Obama's pen and phone and his support of the NDAA, and Bush and the Patriot Act.

Let the Good Old Boys loose to handle Antifa and thier John Brown Gun Club:

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.

The issue is that groups like ANTIFA don't direct their violence at the government they claim to hate. They target civilians, businesses, private property, people who are simply exercising their right to disagree with the protesters, etc. You *may* notice that we were pretty damn supportive of, for example, the Bundy family and their armed standoff with the feds in Utah and in Oregon.

a reply to: toms54

Pipe Hitter Union sometimes wear masks, so I can't totally support this law.

Even though I believe anyone who commits crimes or denies others their Rights under cover of protest should be arrested and charged, I don't like this idea at all.

Adequate laws already exist and what needs to happen is for law enforcement to enforce the law. Block a road, go to jail. Disrupt commerce or prevent people from being able to work and earn a living, go to jail and face a civil suit for the damages to other peoples incomes. Loot, go to jail for a long stay. Set fires, go to jail for arson and nice long rest behind bars. Commit an act of violence, go down with a hate crime enhancement. We do not need a new law.

You know, looking deeper into this, this law isn't even needed in a lot of states. Most Southern states have laws already on the books from the 50s that were put in place to stop that era's malcontents, the KKK, from obscuring their identities while spewing their hate. Seems appropriate to apply those existing laws to masked ANTIFA folk today, in fact it's exactly the reason the laws exist in the first place... militant hate groups attempting to force their will on the public via threats, intimidation, and violence shouldn't be protected under a veil of anonymity.