[dragonwriter]

> There were no guns,

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.

[edmcnulty101]

>> There were guns

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.

[dragonwriter]

> One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital

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.

[edmcnulty101]

So no guns found inside the capitol?

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.

[dragonwriter]

> So no guns found inside the capitol?

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.

[Manuel_D]

> 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).

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.

[dragonwriter]

> The "more numerous and better equipped relief" was sent in to clear out the rioters

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.

[edmcnulty101]

>> 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

I dont follow. This is not super coherent.

[jfengel]

Failing to acknowledge what the Congress was doing at the time makes it very difficult to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Every argument about labeling it in "insurrection" has to do with interrupting the counting of votes. If you cannot address that, then you've already lost the argument.

[jerkstate]

What Congress was doing at the time was arguing about whether or not a special commission should be established to investigate the election before certifying. They had not yet begun the process of counting the votes (so that is not what was interrupted)

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.

[edmcnulty101]

BLM protests took over an area of Seattle called the CHAZ...and stopped all government activities there for days, even the police left.

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_gastropod]

And failing to move your car for street sweepers is an interruption of government activities, and therefore equivalent to Jan. 6th too, right?

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.

[DarylZero]

Because they didn't leave any guns behind after they stormed the capitol building, that proves how innocent they are?

Silly.

[pvaldes]

> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection,

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.