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.
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.