Security Propaganda

June 8th, 2020 armed men established a new government within an America city. Armed men prevented the previously elected government from enforcing American law. The siege lasted a month. This was not described as a coup. The word coup is used zero times on the wikipedia page.

January 6, 2021 unarmed men "storm" the United States capitol. The building was breached at 2pm. Control of the Capitol was restored by 5pm. No new government was established. The word coup is used 53 times on the wikipedia page. Currently the Capitol is surrounded with a border wall defended by armed military to prevent citizens from accessing the Capitol. A massive political effort has been conducted to locate, prosecute, and censor the speech of anyone that may have supported the reasons behind the protest at the capitol, not just the behavior at the Capitol.

All the propaganda from the faction in power shows us that they are afraid that their opponents will behave as they behaved. Good.

https://www.monticello.org/site/res...fears-people-there-liberty-spurious-quotation

(My how things have changed and stayed the same since Jefferson wrote that.)

But now the government's attempts to reduce their fears and establish control of the people cannot be allowed to swing the balance of fear in the other direction. It is the people's right to access the government. It is the people's right to speak and be heard by their elected representatives. The hypocrisy of tearing down walls at the border while building them around themselves is ridiculous.

 

So far, at least 90 people have been arrested on charges ranging from misdemeanor curfew violations to felonies related to assaults on police officers, possessing illegal weapons and making death threats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Associated Press

 

Do you think the capitol should have a security wall around it?

 

The FBI investigations into those who participated in the January 6 invasion of our nations capitol is the nations largest FBI investigation since 9-11-2001.

 

Political consequences
The day after the fire, at Hitler's request, President Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law by using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.[13] These rights were not reinstated during Nazi reign. The decree was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. Nazi Party newspapers then published this fabricated "news".[13] This sent the German population into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

 

Only if it is necessary for the safety of those that work there. It wasn't safe a month ago; has that threat gone away?

 

The hypocrisy of the DCP never fails.

 

It is the design of our government that the threat should never go away. It is the tool of last resort to keep political power in check against tyrannical rule. Do you feel comfortable knowing that your government has walled itself away from you?

 

Stats for Chadistan??

 

Democrats are afraid for themselves, hence the erection of such a fence in the first place. They coopted the national guard because, well, guns for them, but not for the rest of us. This is what banana republics and now democrats do.

 

Oops

 

uh, it is not a tool. It is illegal, any time it is done. There is nothing in the law permitting a citizen from violently overthrowing their government, or resisting by force. Both are specifically precluded by law.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

right, as I said there is nothing in the law permitting such. The DOC has no legal relevance or weight in the US. As I pointed out, resisting the govn't by force or trying to overthrow it is specifically precluded by law.

 

I feel upset that a wall was made necessary in the first place by violent people who threatened our Vice President and members of Congress and who were intent on stopping the function of our government. Were you similarly upset when the walls were put up around the White House last July and reinforced in November?

The fence was built during the Trump Administration.

 

Natural Law says otherwise.

 

I read a scholarly article awhile back on the subject of insurrections. The author argued that insurrections, successful insurrections, are fueled by the energy of riled up young adults fighting for a brighter future. That a Trumpian insurrection was likely to fail because it is a middle aged, middle class movement to prevent the change that is inevitable. An authoritarian effort to cling to a past that never was. But it lacks vigor, as most of the warriors are of the armchair variety. Well past their prime.


On December 21st, a Trumpian mob forced their way into the state capital in Salem Oregon in a failed attempt to force legislation in progress to bend to their will. The state and local police quickly swarmed in and put an end to it. Watching the videos of the attacks on the Oregon Capital and the National Capital, it looks almost as if the attack in Oregon was a dress rehearsal for the National Capital.

I’m not sure why so many conservatives are so bent on denying the attack on the Capital. Why pretend things are other than they are when we all can see the videos of what happened. We have all heard the false claims that the Trump has been repeatedly making. We have seen its surrogates pound the same false narrative over and over again, riling up the base. Having failed to block mail-in votes, having failed to persuade state election officials to illicitly give it the election, having failed to persuade governors and state legislatures to declare it the winner out of supposed party loyalty, having failed to find a judge sympathetic enough to destroy one’s reputation and career for, the Trump turned to its most fervent followers.

They broke doors and windows, they trashed offices and stole items many used as trophies, or to sell on the black market. They chanted for the killings of leaders such as Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and AOC. Their intention was to force Congress into declaring the Trump the winner of the election, even though it clearly lost. The Capital police did their job, keeping all members of Congress, and their aides safe. The Trump, watching the whole affair unfold on television, refused to send in the National Guard. Leaving it to Pence to call them in to quell the violence.

Yet somehow it was no big deal. Not really. Just a couple of good ol boys expressing their patriotic opinions to their representatives in the normal manner. How dare the Democrats think anything nefarious was up.

Thing is, they failed. Just like they failed in Michigan. Just as they failed in Oregon. They failed to capture members of Congress and change history. It surprises me not, as I have always seen such a scenario as the tragic dead end of Trumpmania, as it scratches and claws away for the power it never quite had. That its most fervent base lacks the numbers it pretends it has.

 

It is the duty of the government to address the grievance of the people that petition it for remedy. The remedy is what is necessary, not a wall. The wall is not a remedy to the concerns that were raised by either side's protests. Nor can it be an excuse to ignore remedial action due to the escalation to violence caused by a few. Wasn't this the argument of BLM? Didn't we hear how mostly peaceful their protests were? Don't they have valid concerns that require remedy? Can the government just wall itself away and ignore those concerns simply because some of the members of BLM or Antifa were violent?

Yes.

So that makes it okay in your view? Or can we agree that a government that walls itself away from the people is bad no matter which administration does it?

 

The Leftist Nazi party provided a good playbook for todays' Democrats. I will never understand why Democrat voters are so willing to give up their liberty

 

The government enforces law through force. The people's last recourse to abolish an unjust law is force. That's why we have a second amendment; to secure the right of the people to use force in the defense of their rights and liberty from government tyranny.

 

no such thing as natural law.

 

Being as the majority of the people have electorally rejected the Trump, twice, it seems to me that the consent of the governed is that the Trump not be at the head of our government.

 

That has been my main point. They failed. The government was up and running within hours. There was considerably more damage and deaths in the BLM riots. And yet, the democrats scream bloody murder about the capitol riots, but barely talk about all the others.

And by the way, it was not just a couple of good old boys. This was a well organized misguided group which should be condemned by both sides. As the BLM riots should be condemned by both sides.

 

again, you have no legal basis for this statement. Armed insurrection is specifically precluded in US law.

 

Laughably wrong.