These 2A die-hards made the strongest argument against their needing guns

[intrepidity]

Don't they always say that they need their arsenals to defend against tyranny?

And didn't they manage to storm the Capitol without firearms, coming a hair's width from actually capturing and perhaps killing many government high-ranking officials??

Apart from their rank incompetence and utter buffoonishness, didn't they mount an insurrection, and nearly actually accomplish a coup d'etat???

And is there any doubt, that had they shown up armed to the teeth, they'd have been stopped a mile away from the Capitol, would have never even been able to step a foot on the grounds????

Doesn't that sort of TOTALLY INVALIDATE THEIR WHOLE FUCKING ARGUMENT?????

Because it seems that way to me.

[pandr32]

1. They apparently don't know how to recognize tyranny when they see it.

[Mr.Bill]

16. The ironic thing they don't realize,

is if they got their wishes, Trump was made president for life, all the democrats were executed and he alone ruled, you know what would eventually happen?

He would have had to take their guns away. You can't rule an armed society as a dictator.

[pandr32]

17. Wouldn't they then act surprised?!!!

The stupid is staggering.

[brush]

2. I'm not sure they wouldn't have gotten there if they were armed as...

there seems to have been some complicity with the Capitol Police heads leaving the building vulnerable and the DOD delaying sending in the Nat'l Guard. Something was up with that as the security that's there now should've been there on the 6th. The barn door was closed after the horses were gone.

We got lucky that the seditionists just missed catching Pence, senators and representatives.

[intrepidity]

3. But the main point: they got there without guns nt

[mercuryblues]

4. Some had guns

[intrepidity]

5. But that did not play a role nt

[brush]

6. They got there because the building was left vulnerable.

It's pretty apparent IMO that there was complicity as the Capitol Chief of police and both Sergeants-at-Arms had to resign and the DOD wouldn't send the Nat'l Guard immediately. The security that's there now should've been there on the 6th.

In other words, they wouldn't have gotten there if the appropriate security had been in place.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.

[intrepidity]

7. Even so, they got there without guns

You can list a dozen reasons for why and how it happened, but my point stands, and stands strong: firearms are NOT necessary for a violent insurrection.

They have handed us, on a silver platter, our best weapon *ever* to enact strong gun laws.

[AmyStrange]

8. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[brush]

9. Nah, there wouldn't have been an insurrection if the security that's there now had been in place...

on the 6th, armed or unarmed.

[intrepidity]

11. Are you missing my point?

I can't tell.

[brush]

13. I get it but I don't agree with it. As I said, there wouldn't have been...

an insurrection, armed or unarmed, at all if the appropriate security had been in place.

[intrepidity]

14. My point was that it happened without firearms

Do you disagree with that?

[Hav]

10. Well, one major point against that is that they didn't fight against tyranny

They had the numbers on their side, overran them for a short time and were lucky that they weren't fighting a dictator that would have have let his troops mow them down. And then they were cleared out of the Capitol by armed forces because opposing that without guns would have been pretty foolish.

[intrepidity]

12. My point stands strong

Your logic is flawed.

[abqtommy]

15. Now is not the time to attempt to reason with these terrorists. When they bring their guns we need

to bring rocket launchers. After the smoke clears and the dust settles then their survivors might listen.