‘Unmasking Antifa Act' includes 15-year prison term proposal.

Iggy McLulz

Fucking Delightful
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
4,814
Location
York, P.A.
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
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
but received renewed attention on Tuesday after alt-right personality Mike Cernovich encouraged his followers to call their representatives and "let them know what you think" about the legislation.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
What's good enough for one violent Democrat terrorist movement (the KKK) is good enough for another violent Democrat terrorist movement ("anti"-fascists).

Here's the thing.

Yes, violent and anti-social cunts who engage in behaviour that infringes on other peoples rights should not expect the kinds of protection they would deny others. I don't care who they are. But fuck the idea of getting fined exorbitant amounts of your hard earned money because you happened to find yourself among a "protest" on October 31st in a Bugs Bunny mask. Don't laugh, weirder things have happened.

The US has its first and second amendment rights. These ought to trump state legislation in those states which for whatever reason rule that "stand your ground" is not a defence against protecting yourself or your property, nor the abdridgement of an individual's rights to free expression, irrespective of what attire they happen to be wearing at the time. And as far as I can tell, there is no constitutional right provided for those delightful little individuals who like to congregate in mobs for the purposes of fucking up others whose expressed ideals are at odds with their own, be it with firearms or bottles of Jenkem.

This whole "Unmasking of ANTIFA" act would likely not pass muster in front of SCOTUS and by rights it shouldn't. It is a breach of your first amendment to levy fines against people for showing up in headdress, especially if certain immigrants of middle-eastern extraction are given a free pass "because religion". Which you can bet they will be. Fuck that noise.

Masks are not in and of themselves a problem. People's actions are. If you're out and about and you suddenly find yourself or a family member menaced by an antagonistic club wielding neanderthal "anti-fascist", you should be well within your rights to kneecap the bastard where he or she stands and without the state stepping in on their behalf. Similarly, if that prick is simply yelling a bunch of shit you don't personally like but NOT threatening to damage you in any way and you start whaling in on them, the state should then hold you accountable. It is the state's duty to protect its citizenry, to maintain some semblance of order. It is not the state's right to establish precedents that might conceivably be used to fuck over selected individuals on a whim, which on the face of it is exactly what this unmask legislation appears to be.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Right, but the "unmasking antifa" bill (not the exact name, but whatever) does make that distinction. Nobody's going to come under its shadow just for wearing a mask but, rather, for criminal menacing and/or violence while wearing a mask.
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
I disagree. I've seen far too many cases where lawyers have thrown anything and everything at a court case in the hopes of obtaining a prosecution... and dislike the prospect of yet further governance and criminalization, particularly where there's no need for it.

The central premise remains; wearing a mask is not the problem here. Criminal menacing and/or violence is. I could give two shits if a potential assailant was someone was wearing a full koala furry suit or street civvies, they ought to be held equally accountable for their actions, not for what they happened to be wearing at the time.
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.
 
Last edited:

SHAMPAIN

Vape Nation
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
23,444
Location
Halfway Up Ben Nevis
Everyone could just start wearing these.

Say it (edit) isn’t so Iggy!? Do you watch the dung turks?

Don't take everything I say/post too seriously. Sometimes I post stuff simply because I know someone will find it interesting. I like to observe people sometimes, clearly I like to post a lot too.

I don’t take anyone online too seriously, no fun in that... You’re intriguing to me lol, show yourself! Not literally of course:TooCool:
 
OP
OP
Iggy McLulz

Iggy McLulz

Fucking Delightful
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
4,814
Location
York, P.A.
Everyone could just start wearing these.

Say it (edit) isn’t so Iggy!? Do you watch the dung turks?

Don't take everything I say/post too seriously. Sometimes I post stuff simply because I know someone will find it interesting. I like to observe people sometimes, clearly I like to post a lot too.

I don’t take anyone online too seriously, no fun in that... You’re intriguing to me lol, show yourself! Not literally of course:TooCool:

I shall do a proper intro via PM so I don't threadjack.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.

I think the point of it is to deter these cowardly little cretins from showing up for the "anonymous riot mob" antics in the first place. They're using identity concealment to embolden themselves for domestic terrorism; I'm okay with a law that takes some of that gusto out of them.
 
OP
OP
Iggy McLulz

Iggy McLulz

Fucking Delightful
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
4,814
Location
York, P.A.
I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.

I think the point of it is to deter these cowardly little cretins from showing up for the "anonymous riot mob" antics in the first place. They're using identity concealment to embolden themselves for domestic terrorism; I'm okay with a law that takes some of that gusto out of them.
What about the people who want to just conceal their identity for fear of repercussions for protesting peacefully? When it comes down to it police don't give a shit about sorting out who's really causing an issue, most just want the glory of a big bust. I realize it's for the courts to sort out but police are out of control. I rarely see officers acting as they should, they resort to violence too quickly without attempting to de-escalate situations first.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.

I think the point of it is to deter these cowardly little cretins from showing up for the "anonymous riot mob" antics in the first place. They're using identity concealment to embolden themselves for domestic terrorism; I'm okay with a law that takes some of that gusto out of them.
What about the people who want to just conceal their identity for fear of repercussions for protesting peacefully? When it comes down to it police don't give a shit about sorting out who's really causing an issue, most just want the glory of a big bust. I realize it's for the courts to sort out but police are out of control. I rarely see officers acting as they should, they resort to violence too quickly without attempting to de-escalate situations first.

Well, there's an easy way to sort who's who: if you have a good reason to believe that a peaceful protest is going to turn other-than-peaceful -- for example, if you get word that "anti"-fascists are going to show up, or if you see "anti"-fascists there ("anti" in quotes because they are, in fact, the ones who behave like fascists), then simply don't mix into their ranks. If you intend to be peaceful, don't get shoulder to shoulder with the 21st century brownshirts.

Besides, more often than not, it's been the case that the police haven't done a thing about the Communist thugs.
 
OP
OP
Iggy McLulz

Iggy McLulz

Fucking Delightful
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
4,814
Location
York, P.A.
I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.

I think the point of it is to deter these cowardly little cretins from showing up for the "anonymous riot mob" antics in the first place. They're using identity concealment to embolden themselves for domestic terrorism; I'm okay with a law that takes some of that gusto out of them.
What about the people who want to just conceal their identity for fear of repercussions for protesting peacefully? When it comes down to it police don't give a shit about sorting out who's really causing an issue, most just want the glory of a big bust. I realize it's for the courts to sort out but police are out of control. I rarely see officers acting as they should, they resort to violence too quickly without attempting to de-escalate situations first.

Well, there's an easy way to sort who's who: if you have a good reason to believe that a peaceful protest is going to turn other-than-peaceful -- for example, if you get word that "anti"-fascists are going to show up, or if you see "anti"-fascists there ("anti" in quotes because they are, in fact, the ones who behave like fascists), then simply don't mix into their ranks. If you intend to be peaceful, don't get shoulder to shoulder with the 21st century brownshirts.

Besides, more often than not, it's been the case that the police haven't done a thing about the Communist thugs.
Unfortunately we don't always know who is going to come out as antifa. I've shown up and they were already there. Then there are the people who just jump right in not realizing exactly what kind of people they've joined in with. There are also people who purposely join movements just to try to destroy them. Burn the world and start over? I prefer everyone just get along as much as possible regardless. This divide is ridiculous.
 

Gyroscope

OmniPoster
Site Supporter
Messages
1,042
Location
Anal Creampie
I've seen videos from down south where the cops tell people to take the fucking masks off or else they're gonna get arrested. They hum and haw, refuse to identify themselves or take the masks off, and then go bitchmode when the cuffs actually go on.

That system seems to work a lot better than in the big cities where the cops are mysteriously told to "stand down" every time there's a race riot over some fucktard who got himself shot, or whatever other flavor-of-the-month outrage.

Also, I've noticed the antifa types seem to be the first to scream for the cops if one of their own gets assaulted. That tickles my taint quite a bit, ha. When they swarm a Klan rally or an actual real Nazi march or block traffic or something, and then people act surprised when somebody gets stabbed or ran over by a Challenger(It's in the name, you're supposed to DODGE)... like what the fuck did you expect to happen? I don't care what cause you fight for, if a mob of people is coming at me shit is about to go down one way or the other until I am able to remove myself from the situation. People have no concept of their own mortality.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Unfortunately we don't always know who is going to come out as antifa.

Well, the "hillbilly ninja suit" look is usually a pretty solid indicator. Maybe now that penalties come with that, we'll see a drop in the thuggery. As for people innocently walking around with their identities concealed like that... I don't buy it. That "Central Casting teenaged bank robber" look isn't exactly grocery shopping attire, is it?
 
Last edited:

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
Everyone could just start wearing these.

I find it amusing this comes out of Chicago, a town that is famously one of the more violent in terms of firearm related offences and in spite of its tighter gun control laws. Also that the TYT would flag 3D printers as "the end of the world" for the fact that you could manufacture masks and weapons. I guess they never heard of home workshops, plaster of paris or papier mâché. Or maybe they have and they're simply indulging in the usual round of scaring the shit our of people for ratings, the media excels at that.

I did see a rather interesting potential use for 3D printers flagged recently - fudging forensic evidence. Not possible to do yet? Heh, perhaps not easily, but with technology being what it is I imagine a few of us might well see it in our lifetimes and the proof of concept already exists with scientists "printing" various biological components. And what was that story recently out of California where police solved a cold case involving a serial killer by dipping into the ancestry.com styled databases? What is to stop a less than scrupulous person with the right connections obtaining the DNA fingerprint of someone they didn't like very much and producing a few strands of hair... some blood maybe, whatever... to plant at the scene of a crime for Mr Plod to collect. Couple that to the sort of argument that "if you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind us unmasking you" mentality? Most people who submitted their DNA to private companies did so without ever considering that it might be used in evidence against them later or that the hacker culture might collect it as one might collect a bunch of PI en masse from organisations whose security was less than stellar. Suddenly you're in the dock for some crime you know full well you didn't commit and your alibi is getting dismissed "because the DNA evidence doesn't lie"... the coming years sure do promise to be interesting.


I do understand why you think it's a good idea on the face of it, don't get me wrong. I personally think Antifa is riddled with easily led hypocrites myself, many of whom should be prosecuted for the stuff they've done. I just don't see why any of us should see them used as an excuse to enact further laws which might potentially be misused against others further down the line, possibly even ourselves.

Where I am, it is illegal to turn up to a rally in a Guy Fawkes mask, doesn't matter what you happen to be doing. It's bullshit.

I think the point of it is to deter these cowardly little cretins from showing up for the "anonymous riot mob" antics in the first place. They're using identity concealment to embolden themselves for domestic terrorism; I'm okay with a law that takes some of that gusto out of them.
I think the point of it is to augment an already too nosey surveillance state's ability to poke its nose into people's private affairs. If the legislators were about "deterring the cowardly little cretins", they'd admit that stringent gun control laws are counterproductive in your nation and relax them accordingly. Instead you have a situation where your enumerated constitutional right to bear arms for the purposes of protecting you and yours is being chiseled away at, as is your right to privacy. Do the math.


What about the people who want to just conceal their identity for fear of repercussions for protesting peacefully? When it comes down to it police don't give a shit about sorting out who's really causing an issue, most just want the glory of a big bust. I realize it's for the courts to sort out but police are out of control. I rarely see officers acting as they should, they resort to violence too quickly without attempting to de-escalate situations first.

Which is precisely my point. The police in many jurisdictions now function more or less as the private militia of the wealthiest class, a class which enjoys its status and chattels by virtue of the fact they can yoke the serfs and peasant classes and keep them bickering among themselves while dangling the odd carrot of an illusion of safety and protection here and there which in the end only tightens the fist around your neck more. You never see them advocating for the removal of those constraints, only for more and more control over what you do and say and now apparently what they'll allow you to wear while you're doing it.

America is less and less the land of the free. You are free only to do as they tell you.


Unfortunately we don't always know who is going to come out as antifa.

Well, the "hillbilly ninja suit" look is usually a pretty solid indicator. Maybe now that penalties come with that, we'll see a drop in the thuggery. As for people innocently walking around with their identities concealed like that... I don't buy it. That "Central Casting teenaged bank robber" look isn't exactly grocery shopping attire, is it?
You won't see a drop in the thuggery though. Rebellion is an idea; suppress it and it hides away and festers, only to surface somewhere else. You already have what amounts to a nanny state operating within your borders and it's not working.


I invite you to revisit the TYT video Bear posted above and pay particularly close attention to Cenk's demeanour across the entire video... see how he goes from the "nyah nyah, we've beat you" to the "fuck it, we're going to tear you down and kill you" across the course of the election coverage. There were a lot of people who were exactly like Cenk on election night... all smarmy and secure in their supremacy... until the shit hit the fan of course, at which point it became more of a "HULK SMASH" arrangement because they found themselves on the losing side.


Ask yourself this; why in fucks name should someone like Cenk care? I mean he sure as shit doesn't look like he's worried where his next meal is coming from. A responsible person imbued with the reach he has ought not be using such inflammatory rhetoric when a decision does not go his way. And he's not wearing a mask. Doesn't appear to have stopped him from advocating unruly behaviour from the sorts of people prepared to pick up his banner, now does it? And if it were just Cenk then I'd be tempted to say "fuck it, he's just a fat bigmouthed blowhard anyway" and ignore the prick, but the charge is also being led by others "on many sides". That was the one major takeaway that I got from Charlottesville when I saw the smiling pigs herding a peaceful protest directly into hordes of counter protesters who had already been pelting people with paint and urine bombs and were waiting for them with fists and clubs.


Make no mistake, this unmask legislation that is being marketed to you as a cure for violence is intended to to anything but. You are being herded into relinquishing yet more of a your peoples fundamental rights which your forebears left England centuries ago simply so they and their countrymen could enjoy them. Far better that you beef up your own rights to self administer your own protections than plaster increasing amounts of laws and pretend that's going to get the pooflingers in your public square to meekly fall into line... because they won't.
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
No, I deliberately chose the words I used. Had I used "because of", I'd be inviting gun control advocates to leap up and down with excuses as to why other circumstances might apply instead.


This way I get to highlight the increased violence and that the laws are doing buttfuck nothing to curtail it. A useful analogy, considering the discussion we are having.
 
Last edited:

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Well, you may not have meant 'because of', but that really is the right of it. Firearm-related violence in historically Democrat-controlled cities is higher because, paradoxically, the laws in them both do and do not work; citizens who have no intention of breaking the law follow those laws, while criminals break them at will. As I pointed out in another thread, this is why mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones rather than at police stations.

But it's apples and oranges, your analogy, do you not see how? The bill we're discussing actually targets people who are already intent on breaking other laws. "Anti"-fascists show up at a protest with masks on, it basically means they intend to commit crimes they don't want to be identified committing -- only now, the cops can throw the little Communist slugs in the paddy wagon before they can hurt anyone.
 
OP
OP
Iggy McLulz

Iggy McLulz

Fucking Delightful
Site Supporter ☠️
Messages
4,814
Location
York, P.A.
Well, you may not have meant 'because of', but that really is the right of it. Firearm-related violence in historically Democrat-controlled cities is higher because, paradoxically, the laws in them both do and do not work; citizens who have no intention of breaking the law follow those laws, while criminals break them at will. As I pointed out in another thread, this is why mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones rather than at police stations.

But it's apples and oranges, your analogy, do you not see how? The bill we're discussing actually targets people who are already intent on breaking other laws. "Anti"-fascists show up at a protest with masks on, it basically means they intend to commit crimes they don't want to be identified committing -- only now, the cops can throw the little Communist slugs in the paddy wagon before they can hurt anyone.
Well let's look at it this way, like Lord Scrotum pointed out........ you can't even wear a Guy Fawkes mask where he lives. Last I checked antifa is not Anonymous. Some anons are antifa but the ones that are, you can usually tell but not always. Part of why I had to get uninvolved was simply because I realized some of the people may have had the same ideas as me but they had their own way of handling things. When other people break the law how is ok to trample the rights of others in the process of convicting and punishing the those who are guilty of violence? Let's just slap down a blanket law and be done with it?
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Well, you may not have meant 'because of', but that really is the right of it. Firearm-related violence in historically Democrat-controlled cities is higher because, paradoxically, the laws in them both do and do not work; citizens who have no intention of breaking the law follow those laws, while criminals break them at will. As I pointed out in another thread, this is why mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones rather than at police stations.

But it's apples and oranges, your analogy, do you not see how? The bill we're discussing actually targets people who are already intent on breaking other laws. "Anti"-fascists show up at a protest with masks on, it basically means they intend to commit crimes they don't want to be identified committing -- only now, the cops can throw the little Communist slugs in the paddy wagon before they can hurt anyone.
Well let's look at it this way, like Lord Scrotum pointed out........ you can't even wear a Guy Fawkes mask where he lives. Last I checked antifa is not Anonymous. Some anons are antifa but the ones that are, you can usually tell but not always. Part of why I had to get uninvolved was simply because I realized some of the people may have had the same ideas as me but they had their own way of handling things. When other people break the law how is ok to trample the rights of others in the process of convicting and punishing the those who are guilty of violence? Let's just slap down a blanket law and be done with it?

Let me explain what I expect the effects of this bill to be:

First, I think the criminally minded will violate the bill outright, because they intend to engage in criminal acts against persons or property. They'll be spotted and removed before they can do so.

Subsequently, the more committed among that group will indeed begin to comply with this bill. Then one of two things happens: 1. They refrain from engaging in criminal acts against persons or property, or, they mask up and engage in criminality later -- but are still identified, anyway, because they will have come in without the masks to get past where they think the checkpoints are.

In any case: These people are masking up in order to get away with criminal activity such as assault. Any bill which chills that behavior is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, several similar bills already exist in various states to dissuade other domestic terrorist movements, such as the KKK, for the same reason.
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
Well, you may not have meant 'because of', but that really is the right of it. Firearm-related violence in historically Democrat-controlled cities is higher because, paradoxically, the laws in them both do and do not work; citizens who have no intention of breaking the law follow those laws, while criminals break them at will. As I pointed out in another thread, this is why mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones rather than at police stations.

But it's apples and oranges, your analogy, do you not see how? The bill we're discussing actually targets people who are already intent on breaking other laws. "Anti"-fascists show up at a protest with masks on, it basically means they intend to commit crimes they don't want to be identified committing -- only now, the cops can throw the little Communist slugs in the paddy wagon before they can hurt anyone.

As a matter of fact "no I don't". I don't draw any distinction between someone who shows up with the intent to bash someone, someone who shows up with the intent to bash someone under some illusion of anonymity or someone who intentionally pulls out a restricted firearm and starts popping off people left and right. In each and every case, these people are acting in defiance of the law and should rightfully be prosecuted to the full extent of it.


You seem stuck on the idea that creating new laws with the intention of criminalizing the act of wearing certain items of clothing in the hopes it will make them think twice before committing crimes where current legislation has failed to do so. Years of failed experiments in prohibition should dictate that this current excursion is going to fail in its stated aim, something you've already as good as given a nod of the head to when you insist upon the "because of" angle. Which for what it's worth I tend to agree with given human nature's desire to "kick against the pricks" when certain people feel they have been wronged. But it's assuredly a side argument when we can both agree that stricter gun control laws are in fact not working and I put it to you that by applying your argument regarding the uptick of gun violence in the face of stricter controls is just as easily applied to any pending laws denying people their constitutional right to cover up, whether they have violent intent or not. All this new legislation is doing is criminalizing an act which in and of itself hurts nobody while giving law enforcement a heaven sent excuse for locking up anyone they choose on the flimsiest of pretexts.


I also put it to you that when put to the acid test, such a law will be struck down by SCOTUS anyway because of the constitutional question, so why waste time pushing for it when a more effective solution is as plain as the nose on your unmasked face? Relaxing the firearm laws to more accurately reflect the second amendment seems to be a much surer bet than going all left wing and demanding the government control even more of your daily affairs than it already does.
 
Last edited:

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
Well, you may not have meant 'because of', but that really is the right of it. Firearm-related violence in historically Democrat-controlled cities is higher because, paradoxically, the laws in them both do and do not work; citizens who have no intention of breaking the law follow those laws, while criminals break them at will. As I pointed out in another thread, this is why mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones rather than at police stations.

But it's apples and oranges, your analogy, do you not see how? The bill we're discussing actually targets people who are already intent on breaking other laws. "Anti"-fascists show up at a protest with masks on, it basically means they intend to commit crimes they don't want to be identified committing -- only now, the cops can throw the little Communist slugs in the paddy wagon before they can hurt anyone.
Well let's look at it this way, like Lord Scrotum pointed out........ you can't even wear a Guy Fawkes mask where he lives. Last I checked antifa is not Anonymous. Some anons are antifa but the ones that are, you can usually tell but not always. Part of why I had to get uninvolved was simply because I realized some of the people may have had the same ideas as me but they had their own way of handling things. When other people break the law how is ok to trample the rights of others in the process of convicting and punishing the those who are guilty of violence? Let's just slap down a blanket law and be done with it?
Nah na-na-nah, better to tear up a few laws instead, starting with anything that flies in the face of your constitution. Sure as hell it will free up the courts some, the pigs that infest your police force will have less garbage to throw at you and given you already have militia provision codified for anyway you won't have to cower under a table in the significantly less than likely event that someone in your immediate neighbourhood decides to go postal.


I can already hear the screams of "Sandy Hook" starting and sure, I doubt that relaxing gun laws is going to eradicate events like that, but then tightening them didn't either, so what the fuck? Your forefathers outlawed alcohol, people still drank. A war was declared on drugs, people still got shitfaced. Laws were drafted to make people PC in the hopes that feelie-feels wouldn't get trampled on and I'm still using words like nigger, wop and kike as and when I feel it suits the situation. Tear up the useless laws, you'd be amazed at how much free time will be available to go after the real crimes.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
Let me put this question to you: When somebody pulls on a ski mask before walking into a bank, what does that indicate to you about their imminent activity? How is it different when they do the same thing before approaching a protest? And while I appreciate your appeal to the Constitution, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights, that I'm aware of at least, that protects the right of the people to assemble anonymously and commit mayhem. People assembling peaceably don't need disguises, and the First Amendment doesn't protect that.
 

aunty mabels cuntwash

acquiring filth
Messages
168
Let me put this question to you: When somebody pulls on a ski mask before walking into a bank, what does that indicate to you about their imminent activity? How is it different when they do the same thing before approaching a protest?
For starters, anyone donning a ski mask to walk into a bank is asking for trouble, but then so is financial institutions that sell firearms in the same building where cash is dispensed. Still, perfectly feasible that an unarmed woman in a burka might wander into a bank for perfectly legitimate reasons. Good luck passing a law that covers all instances of covering faces... or maybe its just certain kinds of face coverings you wish to target, in which case you are embracing the same kind of double standards that the more violent members of ANTIFA are.


And while I appreciate your appeal to the Constitution, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights, that I'm aware of at least, that protects the right of the people to assemble anonymously and commit mayhem. People assembling peaceably don't need disguises, and the First Amendment doesn't protect that.
Actually I think you'll find that it does. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I can think of plenty of instances where it might be argued that the freedom of speech would be abridged in an already violent society if people were afraid to speak their minds for fear of having their fucking lights punched out, or getting retrospectively banned from restaurants or (as has been witnessed more recently with Lauren Southern and a few of her associates) denied free movement across the world because they had the audacity to openly espouse in the Wrongthink of their views.


Now let me put a question to you... what if someone were to claim their masks were for religious purposes? No man, this legislation is outright stupid and it can be fucked with in a myriad of ways and it will be by many people. I reiterate; you have a much better chance of stopping the problem by repealing the gun controls in such a mannr as to bring the states into line with the second amendment than you are willfully encroaching upon the first.
 

skinofevil

Undeniably Plausible
Site Supporter
Messages
2,194
Location
The Third Rail
If someone were to plead that their face covering was in line with a religious observance, the obvious answer to that is that they'd be asked to name which religion has such an observance. All that pleading would allow would be female "anti"-fascists dressing up like bargain bin ninjas, not the male ones.
 

Dageaux

Factory Bastard
Site Supporter
Messages
508
Let me put this question to you: When somebody pulls on a ski mask before walking into a bank, what does that indicate to you about their imminent activity? How is it different when they do the same thing before approaching a protest? And while I appreciate your appeal to the Constitution, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights, that I'm aware of at least, that protects the right of the people to assemble anonymously and commit mayhem. People assembling peaceably don't need disguises, and the First Amendment doesn't protect that.
What if it is cold, and you just want your face to stop hurting, so you put a bit of cloth over your face? I see a bit of Scrot's point and while I also understand what you are saying, I think you might be missing the point that Scrot may not have spelled out in a way you can grasp it. This is not about whom the law is aimed at. It is about another way that the justice system could confine another person for 15 years on dubious charges. The US is already the leader in population under incarceration, and this would be another reason to incarcerate someone.

Once you make a law you are letting a genie out of the bottle. Who is to say that law will be only used against protesters and bank robbers? Laws are absolute. Life is not. What happens if we make a law saying that "If you are wearing a mask at a protest, you get jail-time", and then some asshole judge decides to interpret that law as "If you are wearing a mask then you are a criminal"? Does that mean that the 11 year old with a scarf wrapped round their face on the way home from the library and happens to piss this judge off by cutting across his lawn is a criminal? Because that is where it will end up, that is the kind of shit that will happen if laws like this continnue to pass. Optimally, justice would be tempered by wisdom and (pardon the pun) good judgement, but it isn't. That isn't the way the justice system works. Laws are by definition black and white, no room for grey.

The other thing I would like to point out is both sides agree our gov't is corrupt, power is abused by those in power for personal gain, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with that on either side of the fence (although they might disagree on who was corrupt and who was "fair and good"). More laws = more control. You may believe your side has won a great victory (or lost a crucial battle) when new laws are made, but in the end the only ones that benefit from ANY law at this point are lawyers, judges, politicians, and perhaps those nebulous rich bastards out there who really pull the strings.

Annti-fa (and alternatively the far-right) are pawns in a much larger game. They are being purposefully en-cited. They are what they each fear most in the other, and they have become caricatures, puppets who dance at the strings of their leaders. Their anger, fear, and frustration are what allows us to rationalize what we in our moments of lucidity know is a bad idea. When we read about idiots standing in the road protesting, we think "fuck that moron, he deserves to be run over for that stupid shit". That is called dehumanization, and it is a very common and successful method of manipulating people into doing inhuman things. I (would like to) think we are better than that. That we are not the kind of person who would purposefully run over a father, brother, or son just because it was convenient, but if our opposition is dehumanized then that thing I ran over wasn't a mother, sister, or daughter, hell it wasn't even a person.