To Protect and to Serve II

[Vol8188]

[twitter]987837524700778496[/twitter]

I’m alright with this. Antifa is a terrorist organization known to take part in violent attacks. If local laws prevent wearing masks in public, to protect people from this terrorist group, I’m alright with that.

If they were really only there to protest Nazis, they wouldn’t need to hide

 

[RikidyBones]

Don't wear a mask... WTF?

Masks have been used by violent groups in the last few years during protests. I dont disagree with the mask law.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

There is no reason to have a law that bans masks. We are not talking about a mask or head covering when you take a photo at the DMV. We're talking about protesters.

 

[Orangeslice13]

There is no reason to have a law that bans masks. Wear not talking about a mask or head covering when you take a photo at the DMV. We're talking about protesters.

Hard to believe that Ras is in favor of putting the hoods back on the klan in public.

 

[NorthDallas40]

.

 

[NorthDallas40]

🤔hmmmm

Nm I give up

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Hard to believe that Ras is in favor of putting the hoods back on the klan in public.

The KKK wearing the hood is not a problem. You do understand that simple concept, right?

Wearing a mask is not a violent act.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The KKK wearing the hood is not a problem. You do understand that simple concept, right?

Wearing a mask is not a violent act.

Wearing a mask protects those and encourages those who would act violently to act Violent.

And 20 guys wearing the exact same hood (or black mask) is absolutely a problem when one of them acts out.

And I think you know that. At this point you made a dumb statement without thinking it through and now you’re doubling down.

 

[midnight orange]

Wearing a mask protects those and encourages those who would act violently to act Violent.

And 20 guys wearing the exact same hood (or black mask) is absolutely a problem when one of them acts out.

And I think you know that. At this point you made a dumb statement without thinking it through and now you’re doubling down.

The problem is the "acting out", not the hood. Wearing a hood is not a transgression. Beating or assaulting someone is, hood or no hood.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The problem is the "acting out", not the hood. Wearing a hood is not a transgression. Beating or assaulting someone is, hood or no hood.

Anonymity encourages acting out.
This message board is proof. People post things here they’d never post on Facebook.

Hooded mobs are far more likely to be violent than non hooded mobs.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Do you honestly think that the white supremacy group would not become more violent if they were allowed to hood up?

 

[midnight orange]

Anonymity encourages acting out.
This message board is proof. People post things here they’d never post on Facebook.

Hooded mobs are far more likely to be violent than non hooded mobs.

So what? Are people being assaulted do to their association with this message board? Is there is evidence of hooded mobs being more prone to violence? If so, does the hood make them impervious to arrest?

 

[midnight orange]

Do you honestly think that the white supremacy group would not become more violent if they were allowed to hood up?

I wasn't aware there was a huge white supremacist violence problem. The membership of the kkk is like 7000 and I'll bet half of them are FBI informants.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Is there is evidence of hooded mobs being more prone to violence? If so, does the hood make them impervious to arrest?

Yes
And yes.

That’s the entire point of this law. Law enforcers couldn’t make arrest because the perpetrators couldn’t be identified.
The klan basically died as a serious threat when anonymity was taken away.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I wasn't aware there was a huge white supremacist violence problem. The membership of the kkk is like 7000 and I'll bet half of them are FBI informants.

Do you know anything about history?
Look when this law was passed and look at the timeline for the downfall of the klan.

 

[Orangeslice13]

All I can say at this point is wow.

 

[midnight orange]

Yes
And yes.

That’s the entire point of this law. Law enforcers couldn’t make arrest because the perpetrators couldn’t be identified.
The klan basically died as a serious threat when anonymity was taken away.

So a police officer sees a hooded person engaged in an assault but since he can't be identified, the officer must back away. The Klan died for several reasons, mostly due to changing demographics, internal strife and violence that was abhorred by society. It was not due to unmasking because at the height of their popularity, members didn't need anonymity. Do you know anything about history?

 

[Orangeslice13]

All I can say at this point is wow.

+1

 

[midnight orange]

+1

That's not an arguement.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The problem is the "acting out", not the hood. Wearing a hood is not a transgression. Beating or assaulting someone is, hood or no hood.

Is this a difficult concept to understand?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Anonymity encourages acting out.
This message board is proof. People post things here they’d never post on Facebook.

Hooded mobs are far more likely to be violent than non hooded mobs.

Ban social media or message boards?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Do you know anything about history?
Look when this law was passed and look at the timeline for the downfall of the klan.

Good intentions... still doesn't make it right.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

This is humorous to watch. The "anti racists" are pissed about a law initially designed to target racists. Looking forward to the ACLU coming to the defense of the Klan while 100 heads at the SPLC spontaneously combust.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Anonymity encourages acting out.
This message board is proof. People post things here they’d never post on Facebook.

Hooded mobs are far more likely to be violent than non hooded mobs.

Said a mouthful here. I am not on facebook...but my wife is. Most of what gets said here, in the FF, everywhere, would never be posted next to your picture for all the folks who know us in real life to see.

Great analogy slice. The words "internet tough guy " come to mind. Everybody seems to act tough on the web, on the phone, and in their car moving down the highway...whole different ballgame when they are standing right in front of you and that arse will have to back up what that mouth is spewing. I have certainly been in a few arguments here, which I am not proud of, and have posted the words " you wouldn't say that if you were standing in front of me..." and then you always get called the interwebz tough guy...but in reality it's true. Country boys know that if you talk straight junk to a man's face there are consequences for that in real life. I have aged, mellowed, and try to please the Lord these days, so i don't know that just words to me could make me put my hands on a man...but I will admit that certain words to my wife or kids would result in instant physical force. I am very protective of them, and make no apologies for that. My kids "sir and maam" all of their elders because they were raised to treat people with respect. Everyone should. I use sir and maam when i order at the drive thru...to kids that are the same age as mine. A little respect goes a long way

 

[joevol33]

There is no reason to have a law that bans masks. We are not talking about a mask or head covering when you take a photo at the DMV. We're talking about protesters.

I gotta disagree, if you're so moved to protest something, then you shouldn't have to hide your face. If you're hiding, you're intentions aren't good.