> Everyone would deserve a death sentence in all instances of just about anything.
Now that's hyperbole to Nth degree. That's the slippery-slope fallacy all the way down to the most extreme conclusion.
Let's instead stick to what we know:
1) Many of the rioters had an intent to de facto overthrow the government. They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.
2) Many of the rioters had the resources to do what they intended: they easily outmatched the Capitol Police forces, and backup forces were slow to respond. The physical barriers rioters encountered were not sufficient to the task.
3) What they they lacked was the knowledge of where to go to accomplish their aims. They were too slow to the chambers, and couldn't locate their targets. When they got close, those at the front lacked conviction after seeing their friend justifiably shot.
I'm think it's quite appropriate to consider January 6th a "near miss" for our country as we know it, but given comments like yours and the revisionism happening before our eyes it doesn't quite seem we're out of danger. It is very appropriate to me to punish people for their actions, and sometimes for their intended actions. "Attempted Murder" is a crime for a reason, just because they failed to complete their task doesn't de facto exonerate them of wrong doing!
Honestly, I'm at the point where I hope you get your way. It'll hopefully lead to a proper secession of states so that the increasingly obvious fact that the country has split into two irreconcilable societies can be made a reality and we can all live in peace. Let's hope that the separation happens peacefully.
> Honestly, I'm at the point where I hope you get your way
What is "my way"? That I want people who clearly intended harm to be subject to the consequences of that action (within our justice system and with the burden on the state to prove their guilt)? Is that so radical to you? I'm not asking anyone be hanged ffs. Nor am I advocating for any sort of detention for every person at the capitol that day. But this isn't something we should just try to forget, downplay, minimize, revise.
As it should be. I never intended to imply otherwise.
> The original claim was that these particular capitol rioters could have actually destroyed the republic in that moment.
I think there is a reasonable chance that they could have, had the been able to murder the "enemies" on that day. What does that mean or look like? I don't know. But what happens when the only decision-makers left for our Republic are those that tacitly and explicitly supported this action, if not immediately then more and more in hindsight.
> If every member of Congress died, would the Republic cease to exist? Probably not. There's a contingency plan for that.
Those plans assume good faith leadership. This insurrection was encouraged by the lame duck president and supported by members of Congress that now refuse to investigate it. And it wouldn't have been every member of Congress dead, would it? Those supporting the Big Lie would have been around to govern. Not exactly comforting to me, and I think well within the realm of believabilty for at least the possibility of a permanent change to our Republic as we know it.
> The claim can't be made if this can't be answered.
On the contrary: the fact that the question can't be answered confidently supports my point rather than refuting it. We don't know what would have happened. It's conceivable or systems would have endured, contingencies enacted, order restored. But there's good reasons to think that may not have happened as well.
You're already lying about the rioters being armed with guns in point 1. If you're willing to lie here then what value is there in any of the rest of your claims?
The Oath Keepers brought arms to DC for this rally they had a major hand in planning. That the FBI only seized one handgun from the riot doesn't by any means indicate or imply there were not other armed rioters, especially given evidence from chat logs and social media that these militia groups did travel with their weapons. And many of the rioters had non-firearm weapons as well (e.g., tasers, bats, crowbars, stunguns, knives, chemical sprays, etc.)
The reality is we'll never know the extent of how armed (guns or otherwise) the rioters were, because almost everyone was allowed to leave unimpeded.
Also watch basically any video reconstruction to see any number of people treating any number of objects like clubs. But I'm not going to rewatch the videos to find the timestamps. And now that I've jumped through your hope, I'll reinforce a key point: the vast, vast majority of rioters (both that entered and just lingered outside the capitol) were not searched.
Now that's hyperbole to Nth degree. That's the slippery-slope fallacy all the way down to the most extreme conclusion.
Let's instead stick to what we know:
1) Many of the rioters had an intent to de facto overthrow the government. They had guns, nooses, there were chat logs, etc. This is not conjecture.
2) Many of the rioters had the resources to do what they intended: they easily outmatched the Capitol Police forces, and backup forces were slow to respond. The physical barriers rioters encountered were not sufficient to the task.
3) What they they lacked was the knowledge of where to go to accomplish their aims. They were too slow to the chambers, and couldn't locate their targets. When they got close, those at the front lacked conviction after seeing their friend justifiably shot.
I'm think it's quite appropriate to consider January 6th a "near miss" for our country as we know it, but given comments like yours and the revisionism happening before our eyes it doesn't quite seem we're out of danger. It is very appropriate to me to punish people for their actions, and sometimes for their intended actions. "Attempted Murder" is a crime for a reason, just because they failed to complete their task doesn't de facto exonerate them of wrong doing!
reply