Riot? Yup, on one side of the building outside, yes. Street party? For some, on the other side and in areas inside. Touring inside Capitol Building when cops opened doors and escorted them in? Yep. That shit is on video. Lots of it. Violence? Yes, some, see riot, above.
Insurrection? No. No one was armed. No one was trying to take over the government. No one was in open rebellion trying to over throw the United States.
Words mean things. Or they should. When we mis-use or use the wrong words to descr
One of them was actually arrested for being armed as he tried to escape the scene. Some others who were dumb enough to post public statements that got them additional scrutiny before driving long distances turned out to have small armories in their trunks. While some police were doing their job that day, many of them weren't, and so a lot of people went unsearched. So even if you limit your statement to firearms, it's not strictly true, and is probably not at all true.
No one was in open rebellion trying to over throw the United States.
Classic internet goalpost-shifting. The point wasn't that the number of people armed was PRECISELY zero.
The point was the assertion, by half of the electorate and the still-aquiver media, that the appropriate term for this was an "insurrection".
I'd argue that even some of them had carried guns, a handful of firearms cannot plausibly be considered to constitute "an insurrection" against the United States. That's ludicrous.
I'd argue that even some of them had carried guns, a handful of firearms cannot plausibly be considered to constitute "an insurrection" against the United States. That's ludicrous.
That's because you're focused solely on the insurrectionists and how much force they carried with them. But you're deliberately and willfully ignoring the equally deliberate and willful limitations placed upon the capitol police and the national guard in order to make the insurrection viable. There is much more to the insurrection attempt than the people you're calling rioters. They are only the most visible useful idiots in the scheme.
This was not an insurrection. It was an attempted insurrection, quite clearly. For that, intent and action is enough. If you only count successful insurrection as insurrection, how would anybody ever get punished for trying to do it?
Seriously, just stop arguing. You heap lies upon lies upon lies.
Right, because by your standard an old man in his lawnchair waving around an inflatable sword saying "they should tear down the US government" should be prosecuted for insurrection.
Shall we count the number of BLM and Antifa protesters who've made such comments about the US government? Tell you what, you can toss the Qanon Shaman in prison for life if I can pick some BLM/Antifa's to join him.
All great discoveries are made by mistake.
-- Young
Insurrection (Score:-1, Troll)
Riot? Yup, on one side of the building outside, yes.
Street party? For some, on the other side and in areas inside.
Touring inside Capitol Building when cops opened doors and escorted them in? Yep. That shit is on video. Lots of it.
Violence? Yes, some, see riot, above.
Insurrection? No. No one was armed. No one was trying to take over the government. No one was in open rebellion trying to over throw the United States.
Words mean things. Or they should. When we mis-use or use the wrong words to descr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Insurrection? No. No one was armed.
One of them was actually arrested for being armed as he tried to escape the scene. Some others who were dumb enough to post public statements that got them additional scrutiny before driving long distances turned out to have small armories in their trunks. While some police were doing their job that day, many of them weren't, and so a lot of people went unsearched. So even if you limit your statement to firearms, it's not strictly true, and is probably not at all true.
No one was in open rebellion trying to over throw the United States.
They were attempting to alter the outco
Re: Insurrection (Score:2)
Classic internet goalpost-shifting.
The point wasn't that the number of people armed was PRECISELY zero.
The point was the assertion, by half of the electorate and the still-aquiver media, that the appropriate term for this was an "insurrection".
I'd argue that even some of them had carried guns, a handful of firearms cannot plausibly be considered to constitute "an insurrection" against the United States. That's ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that even some of them had carried guns, a handful of firearms cannot plausibly be considered to constitute "an insurrection" against the United States. That's ludicrous.
That's because you're focused solely on the insurrectionists and how much force they carried with them. But you're deliberately and willfully ignoring the equally deliberate and willful limitations placed upon the capitol police and the national guard in order to make the insurrection viable. There is much more to the insurrection attempt than the people you're calling rioters. They are only the most visible useful idiots in the scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
This was not an insurrection. It was an attempted insurrection, quite clearly. For that, intent and action is enough. If you only count successful insurrection as insurrection, how would anybody ever get punished for trying to do it?
Seriously, just stop arguing. You heap lies upon lies upon lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because by your standard an old man in his lawnchair waving around an inflatable sword saying "they should tear down the US government" should be prosecuted for insurrection.
Shall we count the number of BLM and Antifa protesters who've made such comments about the US government? Tell you what, you can toss the Qanon Shaman in prison for life if I can pick some BLM/Antifa's to join him.