[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.

[edmcnulty101]

I'm saying an interruption of govt activity is NOT an 'insurrection'.

So failure to move to your car for a street sweeper is also not an insurrection.

It feels crazy we're even having this discussion.

Don't tell any of the media this example though, they will have 4 talking heads debate if Trump or AOC not moving their car for a street sweeper was an insurrection, and tons of ideologues getting angry and supporting it.

[the_gastropod]

I completely understand your point. My point is: it's false equivalency. One example of "interrupting government services" is not necessarily equivalent to another example of "interrupting government services". Very specifically, one of these groups was interrupting the democratic election process. That bears a hell of a lot more weight than the other examples.

[DarylZero]

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

Silly.