|
|
|
|
|
|
by devtul
1822 days ago
|
|
|
(Non-US here) It baffles me the response to January 6th, a group of people vented their anger by invading a public building, a symbol of government and power. Not at their neighbors houses or businesses, not looting, not fencing out blocks of a city for themselves. And I here not making any value judgement on the act, it is besides the point. If unreasonable* anger should be exercised, that it's target be public buildings and institutions, the bastion of power rather than at John and Mary down the street. * to be decided by yourself |
|
|
I think there's very little principled about it. About fifty years ago, the leftist Black Panthers decided to openly carry guns into the California legislature's building, and they didn't even invade, they just walked in as visitors. In response, Ronald Reagan, the Republican governor of California who would later be US president, signed a law that made it illegal to openly carry loaded guns. And the National Rifle Association supported that law. None of the right-wing people who idolize Reagan today and also support the events of January 6 seem to think these positions are inconsistent.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of the populace has no intention of taking up arms against the government. That mans that those who are even thinking about it are necessarily not advocating for a representative government for all people. The concern over January 6 was that it would be a coup - putting someone into power who could not win by established democratic means - not that it would be a popular revolution - taking people out of power who gained it by established non-democratic means.