https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/police-officers-killed-dallas-shooting

5 Police Officers Killed By Snipers At Scene Of Dallas BLM Protest


Best regards,

pg wrote on 01/06/23 at 17:35:21:


Quiet pg….. that didn’t happen. Remember. Jan 6 was the day a policeman was brutally murdered trying to protect us against the only domestic terrorist that exists, right wing Maga types. Stop spreading disinformation….

Insurrection against a Third World country might not require guns, but an insurrection against the United States government in the US Capitol would require a tremendous amount of guns. That did not happen. This was no insurrection. If you wanna say they were armed rioters who got out of control, fine, I’ll even say that. But I’m not calling this an armed insurrection because that implies this was a legitimate, armed insurrection and it was not.


 A successful insurrection against the US would require guns but success is not required in order to be armed.  An insurrection with people using bananas at the end of foam batons would still be an "armed insurrection" by definition, that is simply poorly equipped and never capable of succeeding.

 Armed by definition does not require guns.  Saying an insurrection in the US requires guns in order to be called an armed insurrection is not correct.  They can exist and fail.  Jan 6th was not an insurrection, or an armed insurrection.  Saying guns have to be present for anyone to be considered "armed" is wrong.  


"If you wanna say they were armed rioters who got out of control, fine, I’ll even say that."

 Up until now you have said "nobody was armed" - there is a significant difference there.  That means the bear spray guy was unarmed.  It sounded like you were ignoring the weapons present on Jan 6th, or saying the humans with weapons can not be considered "armed" specifically on Jan 6th because the media is trash.
 
 Jan 6th was not an armed insurrection.

 No armed insurrection anywhere on the planet requires guns to be present for the words "armed" and "insurrection" to be used to describe it.  Probability of success is not a factor for defining a weapon in a human's hands.

 If I attack a group of 100 riot gear laden Capitol Police by myself with a hockey stick - I am armed.  The fact I could never succeed means nothing.  If 30 of my associates joined me so we could kill Biden and re-instate Obama, it would be an armed insurrection.  30 dead guys with used hockey sticks wouldn't change the definition - even if the garbage biased Media spun it to make it sound like Trump paid us to do it.

 None of this conversation applies to trash media.  The media has nothing to do with how the words "armed" and "insurrection" are properly used.  Trump has nothing to do with this.  The definition of armed insurrection doesn't change because people don't like Trump.

"No, you’re wrong. Your Switzerland persona doesn’t allow you to see language is being used selectively, manipulated, to paint a picture that benefits the chosen political party of the left-wing dominated news and entertainment culture."

 I fully understand that.  I do not think that because trash media is misusing a word, that the definition of that word changes.  A human is armed if they hit someone with a hockey stick no matter what the garbage media says about it.  The bear spray guy was armed no matter what "the news" says about Trump.  

 To claim they are unarmed because "the media" is manipulative is also being manipulative.  Why do you need to lie to fight their lies?



"There was no insurrection and as such, there was no armed insurrection. If the media had called the battles on Trump’s inauguration or when antifa, BLM, and other useful idiots tried to breach the White House fence, an armed insurrection, then I’d be onboard with you. The fact they didn’t call this an armed insurrection when the events were identical with the exception in the Capitol case, police stepped aside but in the other cases, they didn’t."


 I agree, again, and will continue to agree, that there was no armed insurrection or insurrection at all.  Guns are not required for there to be an armed insurrection within the geographical confines of the US.  You are only saying this because "the media" is trash and manipulating the event.  

 Why do you need "the media" to use specific language and viewpoints on order for you to use the words "armed" and "insurrection" correctly?  Guns are not required for humans at an insurrection to be armed, end of story.
 


"Success or likely success isn’t the primary driver of defining an insurrection. I’m sure I heard that from someone….."

 This is correct.  Guns do not define an "armed" insurrection, and success is also not required.  "Armed" requires only a weapon separate from the physical human body - unless that human is considered trained or in the process of training in activities that are designed with the intent of causing harm to other humans (for instance a boxer).

 You are upset over lying media so you are manipulating the definition of armed insurrection in return, instead of being accurate about it.  The only reason you are saying guns are required for there to be "armed" humans at an insurrection is because you don't like what the trash media said.  Why do they have that power?  Humans can be armed at an insurrection without guns anywhere on the planet.

1:  There was not an insurrection or armed insurrection on Jan 6th.

2: Guns are not required for humans to be "armed" or "armed" at an "insurrection" anywhere on the planet.

3:  Nothing "the media" says changes the definition of "armed insurrection".  

"Educators have lost their jobs because they said men can’t get pregnant. The media drives that."

 That doesn't mean men can get pregnant.  It means people lose jobs.



 Illegal Alien versus Undocumented Immigrant is more like saying Armed Insurrection versus Foreign Object Equipped Insurrection.

 They are accurate, but utilizing different synonyms.  Your example would be more like me saying  "The Media" lies and manipulates, so there are no Illegal Aliens now, this means nobody is in the US illegally.  The logic being the news is trash, and since they won't use the term Illegal Alien everyone in the US is now a legal citizen.

 The news being trash and refusing to use the term "illegal" doesn't mean humans in the US are here legally.  It certainly doesn't mean we should be saying nobody is in the US illegally.  

 The news being trash and calling Jan 6th an "armed" insurrection doesn't mean all insurrections in the US require guns.

 Nothing about the term "armed" requires guns anywhere on the planet.  Claiming nobody was armed on Jan 6th is just fighting lies with more lies.

Eegore does not want to answer this question.

 Incorrect, we discussed the killing of Babbit in this exact context.

 Anyone can sit on a computer from the safety of their home and tell people what should have happened.  

 You are intentionally leaving out other human lives in the equation.  What do you call a man who kills another man who is ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT to the Killers life?

 A murderer or killer.

 What if the victim was threatening to rape his daughter and came in through a broken window?  

 What if the victim was entering through a window while 3 men armed men were protecting politicians?

 Being honest about what happened doesn't make the killing of Babbit right, it's just more difficult to discuss than spinning the facts.  Spin makes it easy and these situations are already easy from the safety of that computer screen.  MnSpring's question is no different than when it was stated that the shot was fired "through a door" implying the shooter had no line of sight to the target.  Why not be straight about it and say he shot her through a broken window on a door?  Spin, that's why.

Eegore wrote on 01/08/23 at 15:21:08:


I don’t object to the killing of Ashley Babbitt. They were let into the capital but this was an area that was closed off. They broke a window and were climbing through. I remember the video and you could see politicians down the hallway within sight.

The night antifa and BLM assembled and attacked the White House fence, had one of them broken through, I would’ve expected them to be shot. But, the officer who shot them would have been adjudicated in public, not private. And at any point where this episode was mentioned in the press, it would’ve been repeatedly pointed out that the only person who died, was killed by an officer.

The difference with the January 6 was the investigation was done quietly to protect the identity of the officer. Also, and I just saw this the other day,  it’s constantly repeated that there were multiple deaths that day including a police officer, which is not true.

Ashley Babbitt was no different than Michael Brown, Travon Martin, Brennona Taylor for example. They put themselves in a position and they were the one most responsible for their death. That’s the truth. But with the other three, we had a very public trial and enthusiasm for a public hanging. With Ashley Babbitt, the politicians, including all Democrats as well as a few Republicans along with the Washington elite, demanded it be kept quiet. That was wrong. That’s the power of the liberal media.