Eegore
Serious Thumper
Offline
SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 8324
|
"It is incorrect to refer to the Jan 6th participants as armed. When arguments against the 2nd Amendment are put forth, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t confusing, arms means firearms, not hockey sticks or flagpoles."
I see what you are saying in regards to the 2nd Amendment, however this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue. This is an issue of having two choices: Armed, or Unarmed. Insurrection, by definition, does not require firearms. I will gladly pay for any consultation you need to find a practicing legal firm that would agree that Jan 6th participants were not armed. I will offer financial assistance on this for one year, or a maximum value we can discuss in private.
It's about "armed" as legal definition. Mass ignorance of the local populace because CNN is trash news is no defense in court, and is not a reason for anyone to start changing the definitions of words, or making exceptions to criminal behavior.
Armed does not require firearms by definition, in any situation. If a man uses Bear Spray on anyone at any time in any area of the US, he is armed. That's it. Jan 6th, or any other day ever, that man is armed with Bear Spray, and if he uses it illegally he has committed an armed assault.
If you are legally carrying a firearm - you are armed. If you are legally carrying a hockey stick - you are armed. We don't remove the "armed" part when debating things like self-defense, or right to carry. If you defend your wife from two men using a hockey stick, you were armed, and within your rights to do so. Nobody will go to court and say you were "unarmed" since that is obviously untrue, and unnecessary. You simply use Affirmative Defense, that's part of why this exists, so we don't have to go around making up lies to defend against lies.
I agree, again, that we should not call every person an armed insurrectionist. I do not agree that we should change the definition of being armed because the news is inaccurately labeling everyone as an insurrectionist, or because BLM is not being appropriately prosecuted.
"You can be part of the club and call Jan 6th an armed insurrection if you want, go ahead."
Again I never said Jan 6th was an insurrection. I said some people, who acted within the guidelines of US law, and provided legal reference for this (Not news reports) are possibly insurrectionists, by definition. I won't change the definitions of words to fit the actions of others, even if I agree with their actions. This is why, without motivation from "the media" I came to the conclusion, on my own, that sedition is a more accurate term for some actions, and treason is not really applicable at all.
"If Jan 6th had been an actual armed insurrection, it would have looked nothing like that."
I'd be willing to hear your assessment but so far all I hear is "ANTIFA got away with it" as your reasoning. Using the US legal definition of insurrection, why would it not apply to anyone there?
|