There were guns; several firearms charges have been filed related to the Insurrection.
> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection,
A single centralized organization is not required for an insurrection; there were various organized groups with common purpose as well as participants inspired by direct calls from influential leaders without participating in a formal organization.
> the 4 people who died were all protestors,
insurrections, especially unsuccessful ones, very often experience disproportionate casualties. Even beyond disputes about which deaths count as due to Jan. 6, not sure why you’d cite this since it doesn't even support your case.
> But calling it an INSURRECTION is just
Is just factually accurate; it was a violent, unlawful collective action aimed at using force and threat of force against officials as a means of overturning the election and keeping the loser in the paramount executive position; the particular official acts it sought to intimidate people into taking were advocate by the leader it sought to retain in power and the approach of intimidation was also at his direction; it was insurrection in support of an auto-coup.
That it was, perhaps, desperately and hurriedly assembled, poorly planned and organized, and certainly ultimately unsuccessful isn't an argument that it wasn't an insurrection.
One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital. the other charges are related to guns in a vehicle and a hearsay claim.
You're inflating statistically and significant details to further an inaccurate narrative.
>>was a violent, unlawful collective action aimed at using force and threat of force against officials as a means of overturning the election
Nice claim but pretty subjective interpretation.
I'm sure there were a few people there with bad intentions.
But are all Arabs terrorists? Were all the protestors there to overthrow the government?
Your sensationalizing a statistically insignificant number of bad people to demonize an entire group who were there to peacefully protest.
It seems to be a pattern. Take a statistically insignificant detail and exaggerate it to demonize and further a narrative.
This is what the media does as well.
One insurrectionists was physically caught in the cordon on the grounds when law enforcement was clearing it with a firearm (Alberts), whether he had gone inside the building or not is uncertain (and immaterial).
One insurrectionist (the DEA Agent Ibrahim) was caught and charged with having been on the grounds with a firearm based on photographic evidence; solid cell phone data and the plethora of photos and videos his friend took at his direction make it pretty clear he stayed around the outside of the Capitol.
Another insurrectionist (Reffitt) initially not charged with firearms offense (but where the initial complaint noted that family members indicated that he had taken a disassembled gun to DC) had a firearms charges related to the Capitol complex added in a superceding indictment, but at least the posted information on his case doesn't indicate clearly whether it was just on the grounds or in the building.
Not a single gun was found inside of the location where it's claimed it's claimed they were trying to overthrow? Not a single shot went off?
Just poop on the walls?
Can you overthrow a government by making it so gross with poo that they don't want to go back in the building?
I don't believe this should be labeled an insurrection.
You really should want what guns were used to be distributed between the people that went in to the building and those staying outside with no discernible patterns to argue against an organized insurrection. All the guns being outside just indicates that it was strategy (say to overwhelm the outnumbered inside security with numbers, melee weapons, and chemical agents, while reserving firearms to deal with the potentially more numerous and better equipped relief that could be sent).
Now, I don't care one way or the other, because I am not arguing it was a particularly well-planned or organized insurrection, because incompetence is not a mitigating factor. But as well as keeping moving the goalposts because you seem unfamiliar with the basic facts, you also seem to be very bad at even picking positions to defend which make a coherent argument.
The "more numerous and better equipped relief" was sent in to clear out the rioters. And no gunfights broke out. So apparently this wasn't the strategy at all.
After the insurrection had clearly failed in its overt objective of capturing and coercing the VP and members of Congress, leaving nothing to fight for. So if it had been a strategy (which I do not argue it was, again, I very much am not arguing this was a well-organized insurrection), it would have already been irrelevant.
I dont follow. This is not super coherent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EQfUbE4bL8&t=10800s
this fact is often lost to the sands of time; had the capitol not been invaded, it is likely that the republican majority senate would have convened a special commission. really, it was a stroke of luck for the democrats what happened.
Still a protest...
Interruption of government activities does not make an insurrection.
The January 6th protest was not even close to a violent overthrow of the government.
The Jan 6th—let’s call them participants—were there to overturn the results of the election. That is an important detail you seem to be trying to “both sides!” your way out of.
So failure to move to your car for a street sweeper is also not an insurrection.
It feels crazy we're even having this discussion.
Don't tell any of the media this example though, they will have 4 talking heads debate if Trump or AOC not moving their car for a street sweeper was an insurrection, and tons of ideologues getting angry and supporting it.
Its subjective and most people's interpretation of the events predictably falls along party lines.
We're arguing the semantics of 'insurrection'.
I think there would not be a shadow of a doubt if a real insurrection occured.
This event was closer to blocking a street sweeper than a real true insurrection.
Silly.
I think that I remember a man behind a microphone on TV telling people to march on capitol,
And some publicity for months saying that the day N something great will happen so stand "prepared to fight"
And people collected in buses paid for somebody,
And a purpose to hunt for somebody to hang him
And to stop the vote count
And some minions clearly videotaped while driving the masses,
In resume, a certain level of organization that would fall directly in the category of: clear planning, purpose, choice of a non random symbolic date and execution.
I think that we all could guess with a fairly accurate level of probability the name of that non-extant organization and even the names of the main instigators.
But we could also just pretend that nothing passed, and allow a second chance to try it again, probably with a higher body count this time
> They were not guns
Several people were videotaped carrying spears or baseball bats to the capitol for no reason, and using them as weapons, and those actions ended killing a policeman, so... who needs guns when you can smash somebody to death?
But don't worry, they will bring plenty of guns the next time.
As a non-American who's overexposed to second amendment rants, I'm slightly baffled as to why there weren't any guns. The sheer incoherence of the protesters may have been a factor.
There were guns. And bombs. And...
There was perhaps insufficient organization for the armed participants to employ them effectively.
edit: I see in a sibling thread that you have changed your goalpost to be "bomb in the capitol". I tried being reasonable but you don't want to listen to reason.
edit 2: The person you replied to didn't explicitly specify the location, but reporting on these bombs found at the RNC and DNC headquarters was widespread. A good-faith assumption would have been that they were talking about what was widely reported on and didn't feel the need to justify details to someone who is being needlessly pedantic to try and trip people over their own words.
Did you at least learning something new here? About the bombs?
I was just asking them to clarify.
The link you posted shows bombs around D.C. but not at the capitol and there's no clear connection to any organized group or the protests.
Any links that show there were bombs at the capitol building or grounds or that the bombs were confirmed to be connected to the protests?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-fir...
Coffman admitted in the plea agreement that he exited the pickup truck at 9:20 a.m. and walked in the direction of the U.S. Capitol Building, and towards a rally near the National Mall. Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and a cooler containing 11 mason jars filled with ignitable ingredients for Molotov cocktail incendiary weapons. Coffman also carried a loaded handgun and a loaded revolver as he walked around the area that day. A search of Coffman’s residence in Alabama later that month led to the discovery of 12 additional mason jars containing ignitable substances, each constituting the component parts of Molotov cocktails.
Nothing confirmed from Coffman at the protest on Capitol grounds though?
He was one of the rest of the pro-Trump crowd that you have been calling "protesters." He heeded the call of Trump.
You sound to me a bit like Matt Gaetz saying it was Antifa storming the capitol.
However there were none.
The mob stormed Congress.
Their evident motive was to stop the electoral certification of the president-elect and keep in power an unelected president.
Why did they bring a noose for Mike Pence? Isn't that insurrection? Or is it "merely" assassination? (Or just an over-the-top prop that they didn't intend to use?)
https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-...
It’s a good read.
The first citation I looked at...Citation number 7...is to a politico blog post.
I don't know if that can be taken seriously.
We are truly in a post-truth era.
Yes there were. Three examples of people charged:
> Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. […]
> Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."
> Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine.
* https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
Another:
> According to court documents, Alberts was arrested after he tried to flee police officers while leaving the Capitol grounds. Investigators said that three officers tackled him and found he was carrying a loaded 9mm handgun, 25 rounds of ammunition, a gas mask, pocket-knife, first aid kit and one military meal.
> Alberts faces four federal charges: carrying a gun at the Capitol, unlawful entry onto restricted grounds, carrying a gun without a license, and possessing a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Alberts' lawyer declined to comment on the charges.
* https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/capitol-insurrection...
From an actual court filing:
> Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which makes it a crime to transmit in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another. There is also probable cause to believe that MEREDITH violated 7 D.C. Code § 2502.01(a) and 2506.01(a)(3) , which make it a crime to possess a firearm in Washington, DC without being the holder of a valid registration certificate, and to possess ammunition unless it is for a firearm that is property registered.
* PDF: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download
> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection
No centralized organization is needed. From case law (in an insurance case of all things):
> The district court held that the word insurrection means '(1) a violent uprising by a group or movement (2) acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.' 368 F. Supp. at 1124.
* https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/505...
Movements do not need necessarily need leaders:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
* https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/le...
Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?
WOW SUCH INSURRECTION
What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism.
You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.
You were saying there "were no guns". I am saying there were. One of these is an accurate statement.
> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION.
Firearms are not necessarily for something to be classified as an insurrection.
Firearms aren't even necessary if you want to have a revolution:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
> Were they overthrowing the constituted government or protesting?
From the court filing above:
> On January 7, 2021, the FBI received information that CLEVELAND GROVER MEREDITH, JR. (hereinafter “MEREDITH”) had recently sent a text message in which he wrote, “Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji].” Additionally, Agents learned that MEREDITH was likely in the Washington, DC area, and that he allegedly had firearms and ammunition.
* https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1353311/download
To me, personally, threatening to kill someone would fall under a "violent" label, and so would lean more insurrection.
There could have been other people at the event that did not have violent intentions and simply wanted to voice their grievances, and that would lean more towards protest.
> To me, personally, threatening to kill someone would fall under a "violent" label, and so would lean more insurrection.
> There could have been other people at the event that did not have violent intentions and simply wanted to voice their grievances, and that would lean more towards protest.
> a single person being violent
I mean your definition of insurrection does not jive with what you're saying.
I think you're trying to inflate the statistically insignificant words of one individual to sensationalize a narrative.
Your emphasis here isn't helping at all. You just seem angry and unwilling to participate in civil debate when you do that. For what it's worth, I (and others, I assume) find you less convincing now, regardless of the claims you're making.
This is a good example of the type of discourse social media (hacker news) can bring out when we talk about partisan subjects. At no point did you treat the opposition with respect. You just wanted to get more people from your side to up-vote you; changing zero minds in the process.
It's as disengenous, demonizing of a group, and sensational as it gets.
This poster is also using the same single person as their data point for the motivations of the entire group of protesters.
This is a good example of the type of discourse social media allows by making all arguments equal no matter how accurate the argument is.
If the lack of arrests inside the building prove there were no guns -- it proves there were no people, either.
The protestors did poop on the walls.
That's insurrection of lunch thinking about it.
The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists, preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves, who were not shy about announcing their purpose.)
I would also note that the crowd having overwhelmed the security in the building, the armed insurrectionists outside the building on the Capitol grounds were more usefully positioned to interfere with any relief effort.
The protestors left the capitol building at some point.
Any idea why?
IIRC, a mix of evident failure of the political objectives and deployment of the DC National Guard.
I get that "there were no guns" is technically wrong, but ultimately you're demonstrating the above commenter's point. This mob at the capitol had zero chance of effecting any real political change, and had no real or tangible plan of seizing the government. It wasn't an insurrection any more than CHAZ was. Arguably the latter fits the bill even better: they drove out the government law enforcement, replaced it with their own security forces, and maintained independence for 3 weeks. The capitol rioters were driven out in 3 hours.
The degree of detachment from reality is awesome.
They had a plan, and it was clear and public. Lets see:
We are talking of people breaking in the capitol, smashing windows and doors
while shouting: "Lets find and kill the Vice president of USA"
"And also the president of the chamber of representatives of USA"
"And lets stop the new president of USA taking power".
Nope, they don't really wanted to seize the US government, Just to behead it. Just to gain control by force changing the President, Vice-president and President of the chamber. You don't need to seize anything after this, the entire chain of power is yours. You own the whole building from this point on.
It doesn't matter if 99% of the people in the group was clueless and pure as a lamb. You just need to hide a single 'Bruto' among them to be successful. The fact is that the plan failed because all the politicians in the room were evacuated.
Many were armed only four (one based on substantial investigation after his initial arrest and subsequent initial indictment) have been charged with firearms offenses; most of those in solved were not arrested and searched on site, but later based on video evidence, witness testimony, and other evidence. (Assuming I’m not missing more, the summary page presentation is not consistent in how offenses are described, and I haven't dug in and reviewed each of the detailed supporting document for each defendant.)
> How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government?
The specific plan was to use threats and violence to, in order of preference:
One, convince the Vice President to as Trump had publicly advocated and Pence had publicly indicated he would not, refuse to open certain electoral votes, ask Trump-friendly state legislatures to “recertify” them, so that those legislatures would replace the publicly elected slate of Biden electors from their states with legislatively elected Trump electors, or:
Two, render the Vice President, if he remained obstinate in his refusals of participation in the auto-coup that Trump had publicly called for, and any similarly uncooperative successors, incapable of presiding (the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, and the gallows constructed for that purpose, indicating the method of incapacitation planned) so that an official on board with the plan would take over the gavel and act as described.
The successful evacuation of members prevented the plan from working, but that was the not-very-secret plan.
Only one person was found with a gun on capitol grounds and not in the capitol.
So there were no known guns inside the capitol.
> Lonnie Coffman had the gun in his vehicle.
> Guy Refitt is being charged based on his son's testimony but claims he did not have it on him https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-riot...
It's literally sensationalism, inflating statistically insignificant facts in order to futher a narrative.
Sensationalism. There were no guns, which an insurrection would have.
> A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal.
Even your language: 'advance on Congress and stop the steal' is vague and non-specific, and could refer to a protest. They organized a protest that got out of hand. Sensationalism.
I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views. You're demonizing these people.
The protesters were wrong in entering the capitol and should be punished just like the BLM folks who damaged the federal building in Vegas.
But this is not close to an insurrection.
This pushing of sensationalized agendas and 'demonization of the other' is the problem magnified by the media.
We live in information bubbles.
Here's a joke for you:
Before the internet:
> I want to have sex with toasters
> Don't be an idiot, grow up, get a life.
After the internet:
>I want to have sex with toasters
>Google and find a community with 1000+ members about people wanting to have sex with toasters
>Hate anyone who tells you and friends that sex with toasters is a bad idea and shut down rational discussion about it
>Mess up your life
This is identity politics in America.
Both halves of this sentence are wrong: there were guns, which an insurrection need not have.
> I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views.
Viewing the insurrectionists as insurrectionists isn't an extreme view.
---quote---
Half of Iowans say the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to derail the election certification process was an insurrection and a threat to democracy, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
That includes 93% of Democrats, 50% of independents and 20% of Republicans.
---end quote---
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-p...
---quote---
Most Americans believe the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol can be described as an "insurrection" but remain divided on how it should be investigated, according to a new Monmouth University poll.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said it is appropriate to call what happened on Jan. 6, when a mob of former President Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol, an insurrection, while an even larger majority - 72 percent - say it could be appropriately described as a "riot."
In contrast, only one-third of respondents said that they see the events of Jan. 6 as a "legitimate protest," according to the Monmouth poll.
---end quote---
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/558918-poll-majority-s...
No. Identity politics is (for instance) being incredibly pedantic about the usage of a word because you take (glaringly obvious, btw) personal offense to its usage. We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic. Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly.
But I'm also against lies and propaganda.
And the narrative here is a perfect example of how identity politics are damaging to the country as a whole.
This is equivalent to conservatives demonizing liberals for being 'communists'.
Its inaccurate, wrong, polarizing, and the media and the people in power benefit while the rest of us hate each other a little more.
> Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
> The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly.
By protesting or by....insurrection?
> Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
As much as the BLM damaging the federal building in Vegas was an 'attack on democracy'?
That's a sensationalist interpretation.
It's most likely average people doing emotional things while angry and things got out of hand, not some organized conspiracy.
It's your ideology that wants to look for reasons to demonize them instead of just be understanding of them.
If we looked at everyone more charitably , even people we disagree with, I think we would advance much farther as a species.
For what it's worth, you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion.
> the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly. > By protesting or by....insurrection?
Fucking what? Just answer the question. By any method available including but not limited to straight up grabbing the ballot box and destroying them. If that is by "protest" or by "insurrection" is so irrelevant to my question. Are you even talking to me? Or some fictitious embodiment of all the internet people who disagree with you?
> It's most likely average people doing emotional things while angry and things got out of hand, not some organized conspiracy.
I did not ask if it was an organized conspiracy and I don't think it was. I asked if it was an attack on democracy. I mean that in the most literal sense and when I ask that I'm referring explicitly to the efforts to find and destroy the electoral ballots.
> If we looked at everyone more charitably , even people we disagree with, I think we would advance much farther as a species.
My interpretation of the events was that those people have basically been screwed over by decades of bad federal policy in the US, including by Trump. But Trump gave them an outlet for that rage. Anyone who broke the law should have their day in court but no, I don't think those people are somehow innately evil/horrible. Please stop assuming.
> As much as the BLM damaging the federal building in Vegas was an 'attack on democracy'?
Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism? Because this is about as low-hanging as the fruit gets for whataboutism and it's an argument I've seen re-iterated ad infinitum. It's different because of the things I said (which you didn't care to respond to) - namely, that the joint assembly was confirming the electoral ballots in the case of the Capitol in DC.
> Fucking what? Just answer the question.
----
It's not an insurrection or an attack on democracy or any sensationalized label you want to attach to it.
I'm sorry your argument lacks any evidence other than subjectively trying to determine 'intent' and one off wingnuts whose significance is being blown out of proportion, with no hard objective facts to support this being an confirmed insurrection.
If you want to believe it was an insurrection or attack on democracy and demonize your fellow citizens, despite the lack of objective evidence, go right on ahead!
Have a nice life.
> you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion.
> you are insecure and uninformed about your own opinions.
>We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic
> Again, no one forced you to talk to that person
>you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with.
>Fucking what? Just answer the question
> If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.
>Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.
> At no point did you treat the opposition with respect
> I tried being reasonable but you don't want to listen to reason.
>Did you at least learn something new here?
It's pure sensationalism.
There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses.
Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building.
But calling it an INSURRECTION is just pure disingenuous sensationalism by the media.
What story will make the media more money:
A protest that got very heated? Or an insurrection?
And of course the more extreme opponents of either side will seize on the identity politics and propagate this narrative and we continue down the path of polarization.
I have no idea how to fix this issue of media propaganda other than teaching people statistics and critical thinking, but that starts with education from an early age. I don't know if most people even have the time to research alternative views so they just trust their news sources, which worked up until the past decade(?) or so.