Everything ANTIFA thread

[Hatin Since 87]

People feel far more free to resort to assault, intimidation, etc when they wear masks. It doesn't make the wearing of masks illegal, just using it to try and hide your identify when committing violent acts. Antifa has precisely the same motivation to cover their faces as the KKK did in their heyday.

It has nothing to do with free speech, though I'm sure they'll try to link the two.

I understand your point completely. I just have a issue with more laws, when it really isn’t needed if they would just enforce laws on the books. Is being assaulted by someone wearing a mask any more violent than it would if they didn’t have the mask? I prefer they wear the mask, so I can identify who to watch out for and be on my toes around.

 

[rhino]

Agreed on enforcing the existing laws instead of letting these people get away with breaking them because they're currently on the correct political side.

A special law for breaking law A while wearing a mask isn't much different than passing a law for breaking law A because you "hated" the demographic group of the person who was harmed. Law A was broken and that should be sufficient.

 

[Phase2]

Agreed on enforcing the existing laws instead of letting these people get away with breaking them because they're currently on the correct political side.

A special law for breaking law A while wearing a mask isn't much different than passing a law for breaking law A because you "hated" the demographic group of the person who was harmed. Law A was broken and that should be sufficient.

Huh? This law is intended to be applied equally to anyone using the tactic. It has nothing to do with favoring any group other than victims of violence and intimidation.

 

[Route 45]

Agreed on enforcing the existing laws instead of letting these people get away with breaking them because they're currently on the correct political side.

A special law for breaking law A while wearing a mask isn't much different than passing a law for breaking law A because you "hated" the demographic group of the person who was harmed. Law A was broken and that should be sufficient.

I agree with enforcing existing laws on people who commit battery/assault. Same with obstruction of traffic, etc. There are state level laws to deal with that type of thing.

The problem is, this is more than isolated, random incidents of assault. Let's call it what it is. This is junior varsity terrorism.

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I have no problem with the unmasking law that is being proposed, as it is meant not to replace existing laws against assault/battery, but to enhance the penalty if committed with the intent to suppress the rights of American citizens by means of organized political violence. This isn't a simple case of charging someone with battery because they punched someone in the face when the punchee called the puncher's sister a ho. Masked intimidation and violence committed by organized gangs against American citizens cannot be allowed to stand. And that goes for the coward in the KKK hood as well as the commie scumbag with the ski mask.

The mask is not the thing being targeted by the proposed law. The anonymity that emboldens these cowards to commit acts of violence is what is being targeted.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree with enforcing existing laws on people who commit battery/assault. Same with obstruction of traffic, etc. There are state level laws to deal with that type of thing.

The problem is, this is more than isolated, random incidents of assault. Let's call it what it is. This is junior varsity terrorism.

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I have no problem with the unmasking law that is being proposed, as it is meant not to replace existing laws against assault/battery, but to enhance the penalty if committed with the intent to suppress the rights of American citizens by means of organized political violence. This isn't a simple case of charging someone with battery because they punched someone in the face when the punchee called the puncher's sister a ho. Masked intimidation and violence committed by organized gangs against American citizens cannot be allowed to stand. And that goes for the coward in the KKK hood as well as the commie scumbag with the ski mask.

The mask is not the thing being targeted by the proposed law. The anonymity that emboldens these cowards to commit acts of violence is what is being targeted.

Once again, a .308 boat tail doesn't care whether its target is wearing a mask or not.

 

[jamil]

I don’t think it should be a crime to cover your face. Certainly it shouldn’t be a crime to associate for peaceful cause. But, Maybe there is some utility in laws that try to protect individual civil rights from a violent collective identity. Whether you’re part of a collective wearing white sheets to cover your individual identity, or black bloc, you’re doing it in solidarity with the violent actions of the group. Those are the two reasons the Klan and Antifa dress like that. So that they 1) uniformly identify as one, and 2) conceal their individual identities to help provide cover for illegal activities.

Those two groups each act the same, as their respective one in solidarity. They’re the same, the Klan and Antifa. If it is a group crime, the utility in a law protecting individuals from that, over and above the laws which punish individual crimes, such as assault, seems obvious. As a group, they all participate in the violence, even though not all individuals in the mob actually commit the violent act. They all take part, they all have their own roles, as instigators, enforcers, decoys, etcetera. I think there is utility to charge the group for the group crimes they commit.

Take bike-lock guy. They’re all dressed the same with their faces covered. They all provided cover. It was a group attack. They participated in solidarity, so charge them all in solidarity with bike-lock guy, to the extent that they can be identified as participating. Seems pretty easy on the spot if that law is on the books. Cop sees one thug dressed in black bloc, face covered, assaulting one or more people, round up everyone wearing black bloc and charge them with collective assault.

 

[Shadow01]

I don’t think it should be a crime to cover your face. Certainly it shouldn’t be a crime to associate for peaceful cause. But, Maybe there is some utility in laws that try to protect individual civil rights from a violent collective identity. Whether you’re part of a collective wearing white sheets to cover your individual identity, or black bloc, you’re doing it in solidarity with the violent actions of the group. Those are the two reasons the Klan and Antifa dress like that. So that they 1) uniformly identify as one, and 2) conceal their individual identities to help provide cover for illegal activities.

Those two groups each act the same, as their respective one in solidarity. They’re the same, the Klan and Antifa. If it is a group crime, the utility in a law protecting individuals from that, over and above the laws which punish individual crimes, such as assault, seems obvious. As a group, they all participate in the violence, even though not all individuals in the mob actually commit the violent act. They all take part, they all have their own roles, as instigators, enforcers, decoys, etcetera. I think there is utility to charge the group for the group crimes they commit.

Take bike-lock guy. They’re all dressed the same with their faces covered. They all provided cover. It was a group attack. They participated in solidarity, so charge them all in solidarity with bike-lock guy, to the extent that they can be identified as participating. Seems pretty easy on the spot if that law is on the books. Cop sees one thug dressed in black bloc, face covered, assaulting one or more people, round up everyone wearing black bloc and charge them with collective assault.

Wouldn’t a conspiracy charge cover this?

 

[Hawkeye]

This might be interesting...

H.R.6054 - Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

Key part:

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Its akin to "pass another "anti-gun" law in the aftermath of a shooting incident. I also have problems with it from a 1st Amendment viewpoint. And from the standpoint that we are becoming too much of a "surveillance society" and there might be times when I would like to wear a fastback walking the streets so Big Brother doesn't track me quite so easily.

 

[Phase2]

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Its akin to "pass another "anti-gun" law in the aftermath of a shooting incident. I also have problems with it from a 1st Amendment viewpoint. And from the standpoint that we are becoming too much of a "surveillance society" and there might be times when I would like to wear a fastback walking the streets so Big Brother doesn't track me quite so easily.

This law has precisely *no* impact on first amendment rights. Peaceful protest is not impacted. Violence and intimidation are not protected speech.

 

[Route 45]

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Its akin to "pass another "anti-gun" law in the aftermath of a shooting incident. I also have problems with it from a 1st Amendment viewpoint. And from the standpoint that we are becoming too much of a "surveillance society" and there might be times when I would like to wear a fastback walking the streets so Big Brother doesn't track me quite so easily.

I don't see any similarity. The law addresses the violence and intimidation for political purposes while wearing a mask, not the act of simply wearing a mask in public. It is the use of the mask in furtherance of political intimidation and violence that is targeted. Much like open carry in a constitutional carry state is perfectly legal, but pointing your firearm at innocent people and shooting out streetlights is not.

Also, even .308 might be a bit light in certain circumstances.

 

[IndyDave1776]

When I was in college, I had a sociology professor who was a hard core 2A person to the point of being a one issue voter. He had grown up in rural southern Illinois back when the KKK was a force to be reckoned with. Although not religious himself, he was from an Italian Catholic family and remembered carrying a handgun from about 10 years old to defend himself from Klan thugs. He was fond of saying "Bedsheets make good targets". I would say the same applies to black bloc.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Couldn’t we just use the terrorism laws against them instead of creating new laws? As route defined above, this is politically motivated. I am glad they’re trying to stop this, I just don’t think writing a new law will make them enforce what could already be enforced under existing laws.

 

[sht4brnz]

[video=youtube_share;n-ABXvbMSc4]https://youtu.be/n-ABXvbMSc4[/video]

Couldn't find a good place for this, so figured here was as good as any. It's old but funny.

 

[indiucky]

I don't see any similarity. The law addresses the violence and intimidation for political purposes while wearing a mask, not the act of simply wearing a mask in public. It is the use of the mask in furtherance of political intimidation and violence that is targeted. Much like open carry in a constitutional carry state is perfectly legal, but pointing your firearm at innocent people and shooting out streetlights is not.

Also, even .308 might be a bit light in certain circumstances.

He ain't anti samwich for certain....

 

[HoughMade]

This might be interesting...

H.R.6054 - Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018

Um....no.

 

[rhino]

Huh? This law is intended to be applied equally to anyone using the tactic. It has nothing to do with favoring any group other than victims of violence and intimidation.

I was making an analogy.

 

[rhino]

When I was in college, I had a sociology professor who was a hard core 2A person to the point of being a one issue voter. He had grown up in rural southern Illinois back when the KKK was a force to be reckoned with. Although not religious himself, he was from an Italian Catholic family and remembered carrying a handgun from about 10 years old to defend himself from Klan thugs. He was fond of saying "Bedsheets make good targets". I would say the same applies to black bloc.

I'd like to meet that guy!

Far too few Catholics respect and embrace the individual right to keep and bear arms. All of them should, but they don't. It troubles me.

 

[OakRiver]

I'd like to meet that guy!

Far too few Catholics respect and embrace the individual right to keep and bear arms. All of them should, but they don't. It troubles me.

Pretty soon after I moved somewhere that I could exercise that right I embraced it.

I'd go even further and say that any minority group that has suffered violence or intimidation should look more into this right and embrace it for what it actually is rather than what certain talking heads claim it to be.

 

[rhino]

Pretty soon after I moved somewhere that I could exercise that right I embraced it.

I'd go even further and say that any minority group that has suffered violence or intimidation should look more into this right and embrace it for what it actually is rather than what certain talking heads claim it to be.

Agreed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'd like to meet that guy!

Far too few Catholics respect and embrace the individual right to keep and bear arms. All of them should, but they don't. It troubles me.

Bill Tonso, professor emeritus of sociology. I don't know if I have good contact information any more, but Snorko's dad worked with him, and Snorko knows him and may have better current information.