It's really weird how these far right "terrorists" all stormed the capitol to "overturn the election" and "hang mike pence" but, somehow, completely forgot to bring the guns that they are so well known for having. Pretty funny way to go about an "insurrection", don't you think?
Makes you wonder why congressman Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) wore body armor to the riot, huh? Maybe to protect against the stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and pipe bombs?
14 suspects in the attack are facing federal charges related to bringing dangerous weapons inside the Capitol, 2 are facing firearms-related charges. Why didn't you tell DC's US Attorney’s Office that they were actually unarmed?!
>14 suspects in the attack are facing federal charges related to bringing dangerous weapons inside the Capito
There hasn't been a single conviction related to insurrection or anything more sinister than rioting or trespassing to date. Don't get your hopes up. Further, note the misleading language used in reporting, "armed", "dangerous weapons", but not guns (save the two facing ambiguous "firearms related charges") which as far as I know had nothing to do with actually bringing firearms onto the premises. The popular idea that the rioters were armed with guns is effectively (and deliberately) misinformation, though you won't find an article outright lying about guns inside the capitol.
As for the alleged pipe bombs, one was found at both Democratic and Republican offices, and there is still no publicly released information as to who planted them.
You'd think with a place as heavily surveilled as the capitol there would be no issue producing images of trespassers with guns on premises, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a single one[1]. Even moreso if you watch the livestreams of the event, where there are no guns brandished. There was one arrest made of a participant who allegedly had a number of guns in his truck.
>Why didn't you tell DC's US Attorney’s Office that they were actually unarmed
If your "insurrection" consists of a population known for owning guns, yet arrives 99% unarmed, then it becomes much more difficult to convince people that they were staging an "insurrection" or "coup". If nothing else, surely we can at least agree that, given the lack of firearms and damage, this was a "fiery, but mostly peaceful protest", right?
This whole story is merely an egregious example of the politicization of our media and justice system.
1. There is to my knowledge a single security video showing a single person wandering into the capitol through a backdoor carrying an AR style rifle for about 15 seconds before walking out.
Thanks for providing evidence of a capitol rioter carrying a firearm. No True Scotsman I guess.
Most of the rioters were armed. There are a couple videos of the riot if you don't believe me. You're moving the goals posts so that beating a cop with a flagpole until he's dead, throwing fire extinguishers, swinging axes, or planting pipe bombs counts as being "unarmed". Christopher Alberts was caught inside with a loaded handgun.
"DC is no guns," wrote an Oath Keepers member on Facebook, "so mace and gas masks, some batons." They had to remind them to only bring certain weapons to their peaceful protest.
Officer Mike Fanone claims Trump supporters reached for his weapon shouting "kill him with his own gun." He must be exaggerating!
> There hasn't been a single conviction related to insurrection or anything more sinister than rioting or trespassing to date.
Oh wow, you really didn't know. Jon Schaffer plead guilty to entering a restricted building with a dangerous weapon. Why didn't you remind him he was unarmed before he plead guilty?!
> given the lack of firearms and damage
Damage estimates range from $1.5 to $30 million. Do you read the news?
Your entire post is merely reiterating exactly the sort of misleading information that I pointed out in mine.
The point once again (the "goalposts") was not whether they were armed, but why they would stage an insurrection without guns. And it is an established fact that save for 1-2 out of, what, 300+? There were no guns. Because this was a protest which turned into a riot, not an insurrection.
>that beating a cop with a flagpole until he's dead, throwing fire extinguisher
The original articles referenced an officer being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Note that if you have been keeping up, they have all since been quietly retracted/deleted because the entire story was a fabrication. The officer died of a stroke within days of the protest, not from injuries.
>They had to remind them to only bring certain weapons to their peaceful protest.
This is pure speculation and its quite a stretch. The vast majority of participants weren't actually part of any of the so called "far right" groups (e.g. oathkeepers, boogaloo boys, or whatever the media's boogeyman of the day happens to be).
>"kill him with his own gun." He must be exaggerating
Yet not a single officer was killed so, again, not much of an insurrection.
>Damage estimates range from $1.5 to $30 million. Do you read the news?
From heavily biased sources. If you watched any of the livestreams you'd see protestors constantly telling each other not to damage anything. Can you find me any pictures or videos of damage on that scale?
>Jon Schaffer plead guilty to entering a restricted building with a dangerous weapon
Straight from the horse's mouth[0]:
>admitted that he breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021, wearing a tactical vest and armed with bear repellent
So still no guns and guilty of attempting to obstruct certification. Hardly an insurrection, and only one person. Where is the coup?
You have been mislead by political theatre and are spreading misinformation.
I agree, most of the violent rioters were armed. It is well documented that organizers had to encourage attendees to leave their guns at home or in their cars (as you mentioned, several were arrested with firearms in their cars on their way to or from the riot).
> The vast majority of participants weren't actually part of any of the so called "far right" groups (e.g. oathkeepers)
LOTS of self-recorded evidence shows that isn't true.
"wait for the 6th when we are all in D.C. to insurrection [sic]"
We know many members of the Proud Bois were there (since arrested). The Oath Keepers even had their little logos printed on their hoodies! You linked to an admission of guilt from a founding member of the Oath Keepers, you...do realize that right?
> The officer died of a stroke within days of the protest, not from injuries.
Strange, the medical examiner disagreed, saying "all that transpired played a role in his condition." Hmm he was pepper-sprayed and beaten by a violent mob, only to die of a stroke hours later. What a cowinky-dink!
The other officers had no history of mental illness. After being beaten by a violent mob, their partners described them as acting unlike their usual selves, shortly before committing suicide. Another chance coincidence I guess!
The medical examiner said of Officer Jeffrey Smith that the "acute, precipitating event that caused the death of Officer Smith was his occupational exposure to the traumatic events he suffered on January 6, 2021." Are you really that gullible?
There's no point in having this discussion if you're continuously going to represent my words.
1. I said vast majority. I didn't day such people weren't present. These are not large groups to begin with.
2. Once again you are twisting the word "armed" to conflate flagpoles and bear mace with guns.
My original point stands. You don't go about an insurrection in 2021 without bringing your guns. The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant. This was neither a coup nor an insurrection, because the vast, vast majority of protestors did not bring guns to the capitol, and in fact I'm not aware of a single such firearms arrest/conviction.
You could say that it was a 99.9% peaceful riot - and again I'm only aware of a single person being shown to have a gun, not "armed" with flagpoles and mace, out of hundreds of protestors.
I have no idea why are you being downvoted. Your argumentation is sound and consistent, and your adversary argues in what looks like a bad faith.
Calling it an (attempted) "insurection" or a "coup" just doesn't check out. I'm not sure, but I think nobody with any power (who could be forced to pass that power to someone, hence making it a coup) even was there in the building during that time? What would be the point of attacking target like this, if the goal was a "coup"?
Anyway, I'm not that interested in this in the first place, but I think your argument is well laid out, it was a pleasure to read this thread.
1. The vast majority were part of the far-right organizations, it was organized by far-right organizations. We have the evidence, we have their communications, they were stupid enough to post everything on social media, we have the video of their little hoodies and logos.
2. They were armed with flagpoles, knives, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, mace, and guns.
Thank you for not even trying to continue pretending the officers that died just happened to die of unrelated causes. Luckily you dropped that the second you were called on it. They died because they were beaten by a violent mob, as confirmed by several medical examiners. You disrespect their lives when you argue in bad faith otherwise, and the Blue Lives Matter bumper sticker on your car.
I never argued there was an insurrection. I argued that an armed, violent riot was staged and organized by the far right, resulting in the deaths of 5 police officers, and the injury of at least 138 more, and extensive damage to The Capitol. Or as you put it, "a 99.9% peaceful riot." The commander in chief of the US military was not powerful enough to stop it.
>The vast majority were part of the far-right organizations, it was organized by far-right organizations. We have the evidence, we have their communications, they were stupid enough to post everything on social media, we have the video of their little hoodies and logos.
You also have no basis for this claim. Yes, there were multiple contingents of so called "far right" (some/most of these groups are explicitly anti-authoritarian, as evidenced by the Gasden flag in addition to their public statements), but as I've said previously, these groups are not large enough to comprise the "vast majority". Most of these were trump supporters who attended a protest. If you want to argue that the named groups instigated the riot, that's certainly a reasonable position. But claiming that a substantial number of attendees belonged to these "far right" groups is at best unsubstantiated and at worst misinformation.
Further, if their communications contained any evidence of an attempted insurrection/coup, you would have seen corresponding convictions already. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of these communications consisted of politically themed shitposting anyway.
But we've veered quite far from the original subject, the argument that a lack of firearms is enough evidence to conclude that this was neither a coup nor an insurrection, but merely an impromptu riot spawned of a protest.
I agree, Trump supporters staged an armed, violent riot at the US Capitol. If you're so out of the loop you haven't seen the hours and hours of footage and social media evidence that shows that the vast majority of attendees were parts of far-right organizations, which organized the riot, I can't help you.
Thank you again for immediately dropping the idea that the police officers that died as a result died of unrelated causes, what a disgusting, gullible view to take of things. An argument in such bad faith it rivaled your "99.9% peaceful riot" one, you might want to look up what "peaceful" and "riot" mean.
One officer died of a stroke and the other four died of suicide. You have been mislead and are spreading misinformation by implying that they were killed by rioters. For all we know, some or all of them took their own lives because they agreed with the rioters but were forced to fight them. Blaming the rioters for their deaths is pure, biased speculation. Are you also blaming nationwide BLM riots for officer suicides?
You are fundamentally not arguing in good faith and continue to twist my words and make disingenuous arguments. For the third time, my original point was that this was not an insurrection because the rioters did not bring guns. That they were technically "armed" with flagpoles and mace does not change the argument, nor is it an excuse for you and the media to conflate "armed" with "carrying lethal ranged weapons (guns)". That is my entire argument and everything else you've written is not relevant to this discussion.
Also
>They died because they were beaten by a violent mob, as confirmed by several medical examiners
This is one of the many blatant falsehoods that you are regurgitating.
Yeah, getting beaten in the head by a violent mob was probably unrelated to the officer's stroke. You're actually THAT gullible...luckily the medical examiner isn't.
Severe head trauma was unrelated to the suicides of the officers that otherwise acted normally before the "peaceful riot?" Bad faith arguments like that show you have no respect for their lives or the suffering their families are experiencing.
> Are you also blaming nationwide BLM riots for officer suicides
There were no officers that suffered severe head trauma in those riots and then committed suicide, so no. If you read the news you can learn more about that!
The fact that he is not does not invalidate the parent comment and your question sidesteps the fact that he left lasting damage that is still playing out on the political stage today.
It literally does. He was democratically removed. The fact he left lasting damage is besides the point, and no system of government can prevent bad actors, only minimize the damage.
He was an oligarch, and then was democratically elected. His supreme court appointees will continue to enforce his policies for the rest of their lives.
> His supreme court appointees will continue to enforce his policies for the rest of their lives.
that's not how the legislature works. A motivated majority can undo anything via the passing of new legislation via an election of a majority of the house and senate.
> Everything's the same! So crypto's no worse then?
Agreed, he was an oligarch, and then was democratically elected, but who's to say what Brett "Devil’s Triangle" Kavanaugh will do in the face of a motivated majority?
> How effective were the traditional means of removing oligarchs?
Having got the joke out of the way in a sibling comment, a serious one: "Oligarch" is an oddly modern term, usually applied to Russians in the post communist era, and of course they weren't removed. Buying your way into power is highly effective. And can expand into other countries, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
Prior to the modern era (20th century), even the democratic countries were only partly democratic (restricted electorates). Most were constitutional monarchs, and of course the traditional way of removing a monarch is execution. Democracy provides a way of getting rid of bad leaders without having to have violence .. but that does also rely on them acquiescing in the result.
> ..The US just elected a game show host president 4 years ago.
^ Was responding to this. He really _was_ an actor prior to becoming governor of California. Actor, media mogul, "game show host", why should it be any different? Even Michael Bloomberg served in politics as mayor of NYC.
Can you source this or is this your personal opinion of him? I'm trying to understand why you're defining this as a purely oligarchal issue where there are many other such instances of oligarchism in history whether it'd be politics or tech/FAANG.
> ..not because of his political experience.
Well he's certainly no Reagan given his class(ism) progression or upbringing, as described on Wikipedia. Is that really the issue here though, because he lacked "political experience" upon entry into the presidency?
> why you're defining this as a purely oligarchal [sic] issue
That was the topic of the GP
> Is that really the issue here though, because he lacked "political experience" upon entry into the presidency?
No need for quotes, Trump had 0 experience holding any political office at any level, in contrast to Reagan. He was elected because he was a rich celebrity.
