[throw0101a]

> There were no guns

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...

* https://www.csis.org/analysis/age-leaderless-revolution

[edmcnulty101]

Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'.

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.

[throw0101a]

> So you're saying out of thousands upon thousands of protestors three had guns.

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.

[ShamelessC]

> WOW SUCH INSURRECTION

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.

[edmcnulty101]

The gish gallop of the person I was responding too, of numerous paragraphs and links, took time out of my life to parse... and turned out to be a SINGLE PERSON found with a gun on capitol grounds not even in the capitol.

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.

[ShamelessC]

No one forced you to fact check them and you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with. It seems if there's one thing we agree on, it's that social media encourages divisiveness. Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.

[edmcnulty101]

I'm very pleasant to people who don't discuss things with disengenuous, statistically inaccurate, sensationalist intentions, meant to further an ideological narrative.

[ShamelessC]

Again, no one forced you to talk to that person. If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.

[DarylZero]

They were all allowed to leave the capitol building without being arrested. There wasn't the police manpower to arrest them. No one was arrested inside the capitol building.

If the lack of arrests inside the building prove there were no guns -- it proves there were no people, either.

[edmcnulty101]

Hm not even a camera recording of a gun? Something?

The protestors did poop on the walls.

That's insurrection of lunch thinking about it.

[DarylZero]

No one said there wasn't a camera recording of a gun.

[dragonwriter]

> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol?

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.

[edmcnulty101]

>> capitol police were completely overwhelmed

The protestors left the capitol building at some point.

Any idea why?

[dragonwriter]

> Any idea why?

IIRC, a mix of evident failure of the political objectives and deployment of the DC National Guard.

[edmcnulty101]

Was it the capitol police?

[Manuel_D]

So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed and none of which used their weapons during the supposed insurrection. As per your own definition, an insurrection is made "for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers". How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government? Are the military, the IRS, and all the other government institutions are just going to say, "Well, guess we're going to do what the shaman in the fur outfit says"?

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.

[pvaldes]

> had no real or tangible plan of seizing the government

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.

[dragonwriter]

> So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed

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.

[edmcnulty101]

>> three were armed

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.