That and sedition and terrorism plots.

“It was a world where a man would propose assassinating politicians, only to spark a debate about logistics.”

Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--

FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.

REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...

One of the biggest threats to the country according to the FBI!

Yes, by the instruction of our incoming president they attempted an insurrection.

The fact they didn’t bring weapons proves that is false.

This statement is, of course, false. They did bring weapons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defe...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/missouri-man-sentenced-fe...

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...

>But I don't blame you for believing the protesters carried weapons into the capitol. it's because of the intentional framing of the media and the government.

They literally did carry weapons into the capital. There are many instances of this. People have been tried and convicted on those charges. You can literally see weapons present on them in pictures:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-de...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-su...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-ri...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-ri...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/capitol-...

None of the links say they brought a loaded gun into the capitol.

It's America. Guns are cheap and easy to obtain. Thousands of protesters could have easily marched into the capitol armed-- but they didn't. Why?

First of all, you're moving the goalposts from "weapon" to "loaded gun".

Second of all, you said that "none" of those articles say that the guns were loaded, but the first one I just checked did literally specify that the gun was loaded, and a second one did specify that video evidence shows he had actually fired the gun, so obviously it was in fact loaded.

>Federal prosecutors said that Mazza, "while armed with [a] .40 caliber *loaded* firearm, engaged in multiple efforts to break through the police line: he repeatedly pushed against officers using the combined physical exertion of the mob; he armed himself with a stolen police baton and assaulted officers with the baton; he yelled at officers telling them to get out the mob’s way and to 'Get out of our house!'; he held open the door to the tunnel entrance against the resistance of officers, and after being rebuffed, he gathered additional rioters into the tunnel area to continue 'heave-ho' pushes against officers in the doorway."

...

>The FBI affidavit said that the footage published by Evans, as well as CCTV footage highlighted by NBC News last month, showed Banuelos "raising the gun over his head, and, at approximately 2:34 p.m., firing two shots into the air."

Third, even if the articles didn't literally say the guns were loaded, the lack of the word "loaded" in the article isn't a good reason to assume the guns weren't loaded.

If you watched the video where Babbit got shot, there was literally a man in the corner of the hallway with a rifle and camo

There's not a single indictment of any protester for possession of a rifle inside the capitol.

This is America. Guns are cheap and easy to obtain. They could have all marched into the open doors of the capitol armed but they didn't. Why do you think that is?

Why do you think that question is relevant at all.

Why you wrapping it in all of these conditionals? Why does it matter whether the many people with firearms went inside the capital itself or if they just helped other break through the police barricades outside the capital, which they did? Why are you making a distinction between whether someone with "a rifle" was caught inside or any other type of firearm?

There were many people verified to have brought firearms onto capital grounds, and several of those people tried to get inside the capital building itself, and there may well have been others that succeeded. Or not. Either way, there is little difference.

There is a massive difference between random Americans being armed and an actual coup of armed soldiers.

Which one was JAN6?

If you haven’t already, look at any other coup attempt from Turkey to Russia and you’ll find the answer fairly easily.

This is provably false -Donald Trump stated that there should be no violence multiple times on January 6. If you have evidence, otherwise please state it here.

He sat in the White House watching the violence unfold on fox news for hours egging the protestors on on twitter while leaving Mike Pence to be hung while he very likely could have stopped the violence with a few tweets. Instead, he waited until it was clear that they already failed. We all saw it live on tv and Jack Smith's investigation brought out the details. Unfortunately, he was not permitted by the supreme court to provide his evidence.

> very likely could have stopped the violence with a few tweets.

That he didn't was repugnant and a dereliction of duty, but even if he had, do you honestly think that mob would have done anything different? People in groups don't think normally, that's pretty well studied and established; I don't think it would have made one whit of difference.

But he should have tried; I'm surprised someone didn't even tell him to just for the optics of it.

People in the white house did tell him, we know this from testimony under oath. He refused to do anything until it failed.

> I'm surprised someone didn't even tell him to just for the optics of it.

White house staff and Trump's family members were urging him to do something while he was enjoying watching it unfold on TV. I'm unsure of where you live but the truly surprising thing is many people in the US aren't aware of this.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-fi...

One of the more disturbing parts of seeing him back in office is going to be knowing that a lot of this malfeasance is just not known by the general public.

> That he didn't was repugnant and a dereliction of duty

But Trump did call for peace twice on January 6. The tweets are publicly available. The idea that he did not is a conspiracy theory similar to the very fine people hoax.

He also said “let’s all march to the capitol” and wanted to walk with them until the secret service stopped him

You are spreading misinformation, as did most of the news media and politicians that manufactured outrageous claims about J6. That’s not the quote. Trump literally used the word “peacefully” in the same sentence when he called for the (planned) march. He did not call for illegal actions or violence at any point. This is well known now, so your made up false quote is a lie.

Is that why they kept beating up cops?

> Egging the protesters on on Twitter

No. This is false. Trump specifically called for law and order at the protests twice on Jan 6th.

I saw people beating up cops on TV, and now he’s promised to pardon them.

That does not address the comment you are replying to, which I presume means you also know that Trump’s calls for peace on January 6 are fact.

More than 1500 people were charged for the Jan 6 riot. Trump has indicated there will be exceptions.

Words are not always confined to their literal meaning. You need to read about the concepts of powertalk and the big lie.

Trump says many things and not all of them are true.

They were simply chanting “hang Mike pence” because it sounded nice I'm sure.

Ah yes, the protests of 2020. Known for their love of and appreciation of all our politicians.

There's a credible organization.

I mean Ted Kaczynski liked a nice glass of water, maybe he wasn’t a bad guy?

The military->domestic abuse->divorce->family court->terrorism pipeline is quite strong, as evidenced in LV and NOLA this week. Rather than larping in your "local militia" while being slowly but surely radicalized, consider professional help. Everyone can benefit from some therapy.

People need to socialize with other humans that understand them. Therapy can be great and necessary, but it's not sufficient.

Unfortunately the spin cycle has anyone, including a lot of HN, believing that all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.

Ironic given I reserve that title for ISIS who seems to have just recently radicalized another person to run over a bunch of people in New Orleans.

I have no particular love for these militias, but I’m not ignorant enough to believe the stuff media goes about parroting.

ISIS is a militia, you're not making any sense.

Since when was ISIS an American militia? It seems you didn't read the post. My comment makes perfect sense in the context of the article.

> Since when was ISIS an American militia?

Luckily that was never asserted.

The reference to "militias" in my comment referenced American militias, just like the topic of the posted article. I don't understand how to make sense of the comment claiming that ISIS is a militia as if that somehow makes my comment illogical. I wasn't talking about all militias, just like the article wasn't.

> all militia members are the most violent and evil people living in the world.

That's a strawperson. It doesn't have to be all. Groups that call themselves 'militias', arm and train themselves, plan violence, and sometimes perpetuate it. It's reasonable for the public to be concerned about them.

We'll never agree on this because I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.

If that's true, your accusation makes sense.

What an interesting way to talk to someone, especially someone you don't know: Tell them what they think and denounce it.

You don't even need the other person; you can have these conversations by yourself. Or if you need to feel like you're socializing with someone, just tell me what to post and I'll post it for you.

Here: 'I disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.' Now you can respond!

Where did I denounce it? I attempted to make sense of your accusation in an otherwise asynchronous communication platform. If my assumption was wrong, go ahead and correct it.

You don't get to make baseless accusations against people and require them to entertain you with a response. They are not guilty of everything you can make up until they prove themselves innocent of each one. If you are going to accuse someone, you need to prove it - it's up to you. Otherwise, don't say it.

An far better approach is, ask; be curious. People have wildly different ideas than you. Here you cut all that off and reduce the world to the narrow range of what you can think of, and the even narrower range your expectations. The great advantage of talking to others is they have different ideas totally outside and independent of yours.

Baseless accusations are not ok, even if they are commonplace on social media. They are morally wrong. Bearing false witness is a sin. I don't want to be accused, to have this put on me; nobody does.

> require them to entertain you with a response

It's hard to take you seriously when you're doing the same thing that you're labeling as morally wrong. It's the internet, and we're anonymous for the most part, I have absolutely zero expectations of you.

But yeah, that's how a conversation goes. You made a claim (that was wrong), I have told you it's wrong now, and thus the conversation goes. Trying to assert your form of communication is morally superior is quite an interesting take, but to each their own.

Anyways, as I predicted, we'll be at an impasse here, because apparently my communication method is far too immoral for your tastes.

I didn't make that claim, you made it up. I have no problem saying that is morally inferior, a lie, and factually wrong.

> I have absolutely zero expectations of you.

You wrote: "I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are." That's an expectation.

Thanks for sharing your perspective; HN really needs it; I could really benefit from it.

> The majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.

I can believe that and really I expect it. The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down.

How do you reconcile that with the militia group members that are planning and plotting and acting to burn things down? The most visible example was the January 6 attack, but of course there are plenty more.

Are they just segregated into different groups? Are there a few around but you think of them as ineffectual cranks? Do the groups, in this way, have different circles: the hard core, maybe another layer, and the people who like to hang out?

The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down, but some movements do try to burn things down. People just there to socialize sometimes find they supported something awful and turned a blind eye, when they should have done something or at least walked away. A genuine question: With everything happening, doesn't that cross your mind?

> The majority of "militia members" are ... middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.

Cite? I mean, really, what?

As a vet, get some help bro and stop hanging around the militia losers.

> majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system

Are you discussing assassinating politicians with your militia members? Did any of them march on the Capitol? If not, you’re not comparable to AP3. (If so, um, call a lawyer and a psychiatrist.)

I was involved with a local militia for several years. The stuff that I've seen there has firmly convinced me of two things. First, those people are political and religious extremists that fantasize of violence against their perceived enemies and are basically waiting for an excuse and a leader to realize it. And second, if and when they do, many cops will look the other way (and some will be among their ranks).

> Don't be like the author, instead be a man, use Linux and join your local militia.

This makes so little sense as to border on unhingery.

That description could fit a group of friends having wholesome fun, or a private army being raised with the goal of taking territory. These groups are somewhere in between, but closer to the latter. The main mitigating factor is that they’re usually pretty incompetent.