Security Propaganda

The "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" protestors in Seattle had a general assembly that directed armed militia to peace-keep within the borders they had defined as CHAZ territory. They did not consider themselves subject to the executive orders issued by the Mayor of Seattle. They considered themselves autonomous. They repelled the Mayor's police forces and prevented them from entering the zone.

If the DC Capitol Hill rioters had intended to establish a new government why did they not think to bring all the guns you know they own?

 

If I can add some context to this argument: It's clearly not appropriate to generalize national opinion, but the concepts have to be discussed in general terms. If you were to generalize the response of the leadership to this summer's anti-police protests I think you would find that the side who disagreed with the protests condemned the violence, and the side that agreed minimized the violence. I can certainly provide lots of interviews with leadership including calls from leaders like Maxine Waters that can certainly appear to some to actually support the violence. She gave an interview expressing concern that too many people focus on the violence rather than the good that comes from it, and calls for more protests "like we have seen." Which of course is ambiguous enough to be taken numerous ways by both supporters and detractors. Regional leadership publicly refused to prosecute defendants accused of:

• Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer
• Second-degree disorderly conduct
• First and second-degree criminal trespass
• Third-degree escape
• Harassment
• Riot - Unless accompanied by a charge outside of this list.

But it's also true that many instances of violence were not investigated or prosecuted at all. This in contrast with the current situation in which a massive investigation is being conducted to prosecute anyone with any involvement

Edited to add: that by minimize violence I mean accentuate the message that the violence was committed to support.

 

The Republicans support the message that there are flaws in the election system and problems with media censorship, and so they minimize the violence that was conducted at the Capitol in protest of those problems.

The Democrats support the message that there are problems with law enforcement and racial barriers to success, and so they minimize the violence and billions of dollars of damages that were incurred in protest of those problems.

 

Are Seattle public offices currently surrounded by walls and armed military?

 

in self defense only. So, again, armes insurrection is expressly forbidden by US law.

 

Again, tell it to the supreme court. You've not refuted the findings of the court.

 

they know that also.

because no court has agreed with you. You keep citing dicta from a case and you aren't understanding what you are reading. Armed insurrection remains illegal under US law. That fact will never change.

 

Here's what Portland refused to prosecute in connection with Portland riots:

• Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer
• Second-degree disorderly conduct
• First and second-degree criminal trespass
• Third-degree escape
• Harassment
• Riot - Unless accompanied by a charge outside of this list.

Here's what Brandon Straka, leader of the walkaway movement was charged with in connection to the Capitol Hill riots.

Is there a difference?

 

Your "nuh uh" argument is getting boring. Make an argument or don't. But your statements up to this point have not been compelling of your position. The supreme court upholds the right of the people to bear arms to protect against the suppression of political belief. This constitutes a de-facto legal ability to exercise that right in the form of a threat to actually use them.

 

Imagine if your standard applied to other rights protected by the constitution. You have the right to an attorney, but you can't threaten to actually sue someone. You have the right to a religion of your choosing, but you cannot threaten to practice it.

 

strawman. I've made no such argument.

I have. Armed insurrection is prohibited by law.

what you find compelling has no bearing on US law. Armed insurrection is illegal.

it does no such thing.

demonstrably false. See, the confederate states

 

non sequitur

The second amendment is not about armed insurrection. it is about self defense, and the right to life.

 

Nuh uh

 

there has never been a supreme court ruling upholding armed insurrection. That is because it is prohibited by law.

 

Don't be silly. I agreed with your poll.
But your poll doesn't back up your claim that dems downplayed BLM riots and went ballistic over Capitol riots.

Your poll didn't even mention BLM.
Your poll was on 3 protests/riots in the entire country out of thousands and thousands of protests with hundreds of thousands of people.

 

See #127 above.

BLM is in the title and BLM is in the text. The riots in the cities mentioned were BLM riots.

 

Mmm. Not walled away from me. I like our government.
But some people don't. Some of those people are in jail now.

 

So we build walls around them...not around the government..

 

Works for me.
Lets round them up.

 

Ok?
There may be one who minimized the violence?
You may be correct. There are always some who agree with protests. But I don't know about agreeing with violence. But I suspect there are those who might dismiss violence.
But the claim at hand is dems(plural) downplay violence of BLM while also going ballistic over the Capitol riots.
You name one possible person who downplayed police conduct protests and violence. I don't know if Waters did or did not. I know she can say some outrageous things. But that is 1 person, out on the fringe who does that sort of talk on occassions.

Is your premise to this topic is there was 1 that did condone violence of police action to Floyd killing. Has this same person gone ballistic over the Capitol riot?

 

I think Portland has some issues when dealing with protests. There's no doubt.
That doesn't mean the country should be ok with riots and killing at the Capitol. Over some false perception that trump actually won the election. When there has been ZERO proof offered that trump actually won.
And the attackers were claiming to kill Pence and other elected officials of the USA.
It would seem to be an order or more of magnitued of difference over Portland being complicit in violence.

 

There is nothing in #127 indicating BLM were the group rioting. I doubt BLM were the only people at the protests.

Show where BLM organized said riots? Certainly #127 did no such thing.

 

I guess it was just a coincidence that the riots just happened to occur repeatedly where there BLM protests. Just like it was just a coincidence that the intrusion into the Capitol building just happened to occur at the same time as a protest. Coincidences happen.

 

Repeatedly? You gave 3 places out of thousands.
Do you really believe BLM was only in 3 protests all over the country? WOW!!!!

Again, your posts have shown no relation to BLM. None.

 

Are you claiming those were the only cities which had riots associated with BLM protests?