Asha Rangappa, an attorney and former FBI agent, told us in an email that she did “not see the logic” in the claim that firearms had to be present for the Capitol riot to have been deemed an armed insurrection.
As I said, the FBI is a political organization. And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic. This is TDS manifesting itself.

As I said, the FBI is a political organization. And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic. This is TDS manifesting itself.


 By this logic a group of ANTIFA thugs with bricks in backpacks and batons, breaking into The Capitol to stop an election process, would not be an armed insurrection.

 The term "insurrection" does not by itself change the definition of "armed".  There is no "serious" level that must be met to be considered "armed".  

Correct, it would not be an armed insurrection. It would not be an insurrection at all.

But let me ask, a year ago, protestors lined up outside the White House fence but were held back by a heavy police force. Many were clad in protective gear and brought along various objects that were thrown at the police. The hours long event showed a extremely high level of hatred at the force keeping them at bay. Without the police, they would have surely attacked any member  of the Trump administration had they been able to gain entry to The White House grounds.

Was that an example of an armed insurrection?

Was that an example of an armed insurrection?

 Only for those that intended on taking control of the White House with intent to remove Trump and place another person in his place or take control themselves.  People wanting to kill Trump with the intent of only killing Trump or his family would have been enacting murder, or assassination technically as it is politically motivated.


"Correct, it would not be an armed insurrection. It would not be an insurrection at all."

 Ok so what is your definition of an insurrection?  To me, I prefer the Cambridge definition: An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence.

 I do not however believe it requires "country".  For example there could be an insurrection of State government.  In this case I believe that the people who entered the US Capitol with the purpose of stopping the election process believing they could get Trump reinstated were acting in an insurrection attempt.  But only those people, most were protesters.


 I was commenting on this:

"And if you’re so f’ing stupid that you can’t see how firearms need to be present to deem something as serious as an armed insurrection it’s because political partisanship is blinding your logic."


  Why do there need to be firearms?  If it is an insurrection, as in by definition, obviously an insurrection, why would there "need to be" firearms for it to be considered "armed"?  Insurrections must have firearms to be "armed" insurrections?  Why?

Serowbot wrote on 06/03/21 at 10:28:06:


One killed by police, two died of natural causes, one by overdose and one as of yet unexplained death.

Serowbot wrote on 06/03/21 at 10:28:06:

Are you referring to 2016 or 2020?

So the attacks against the White House a year ago were likewise an armed insurrections? I’m sure I can find plenty of video where the protestors at the fence expressed their desire to kill Trump and Pence.