LaxPower Back-Up Stick

BTW, multiple Jan 6 criminal insurrectionists have now confessed to carrying guns into the Capitol or Capitol grounds. Try using google on that one. And stop listening to Tucker.

Thank goodness gun fire didn't erupt other than in that one confined breach moment, but I think that's primarily because the police didn't want to kill Americans unless fired upon themselves.

Stepping back, though, I think the mob was primarily the tool of the much more complicit insurrectionists, led by Trump himself. The intent was to place as much pressure as possible on the politicians, especially the Vice President, to overturn the lawful results and retain Trump in power. I don't think it was about killing police and politicians, at least not at that moment, though 'hang Mike Pence' and erecting an actual gallows ain't just 'pressure'... in the hands of a mob. But pressure was the point. Overturning the election was the point. Violence became 'necessary' only because Pence wouldn't go along, and various other Republicans wouldn't go along with the insurrection plot.

My brother-in-law was in that mob, on the Capitol steps, though I believe him that he wasn't involved in the direct violence. He was there to "protest", having been totally deluded into a righteous anger by all the lies Trump and right wing media had been spewing...he wasn't there to actually overturn the election, didn't have any hope of such...but others in that crowd obviously did have that intent and led the charges and violence (and have been convicted of those crimes)...and it certainly was the outcome that Trump and his nut job acolytes were trying to accomplish.

so, yeah, "insurrection".

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:28 pm BTW, multiple Jan 6 criminal insurrectionists have now confessed to carrying guns into the Capitol or Capitol grounds. Try using google on that one. And stop listening to Tucker.

Thank goodness gun fire didn't erupt other than in that one confined breach moment, but I think that's primarily because the police didn't want to kill Americans unless fired upon themselves.

Stepping back, though, I think the mob was primarily the tool of the much more complicit insurrectionists, led by Trump himself. The intent was to place as much pressure as possible on the politicians, especially the Vice President, to overturn the lawful results and retain Trump in power. I don't think it was about killing police and politicians, at least not at that moment, though 'hang Mike Pence' and erecting an actual gallows ain't just 'pressure'... in the hands of a mob. But pressure was the point. Overturning the election was the point. Violence became 'necessary' only because Pence wouldn't go along, and various other Republicans wouldn't go along with the insurrection plot.

My brother-in-law was in that mob, on the Capitol steps, though I believe him that he wasn't involved in the direct violence. He was there to "protest", having been totally deluded into a righteous anger by all the lies Trump and right wing media had been spewing...he wasn't there to actually overturn the election, didn't have any hope of such...but others in that crowd obviously did have that intent and led the charges and violence (and have been convicted of those crimes)...and it certainly was the outcome that Trump and his nut job acolytes were trying to accomplish.

so, yeah, "insurrection".

I only have so much time with which to rant. And I usually confine my rants to my most passionate topics.

Tucker? Um, no.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used

Per my post previous where you called out "follow the laws" I retract the overall statement. My mind was more in the "the vast majority followed the firearm laws" mode. Mea culpa.

The only firearm discharged at the Capitol was under the following circumstances by a government law officer:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wrongful- ... t-babbitt/

Lt. Byrd should never have been allowed to wield a firearm, or be an officer of the law. Regardless of whether you think Ms. Babbitt "deserved to die" from her actions on January 6, the fact the government circled wagons around this guy is a disgrace.

I don't watch Fox, had to google OAN to learn what it is, and my border security crime comment was focused solely on the arrests of illegal aliens (Clinton's and Shumer's term years ago, before we toggled over to "migrants" and "asylum seekers" who travel through multiple countries just to reach Mexico). I scratch my head how anyone suggesting "sensible border safety", or respect for our constitution, or 2A as a first class right, is somehow piled in with MAGA's. I don't know what dinner parties you go to, but mine are mostly dominated by East coast liberals who wear their D with pride. And it's odd, but these D's have all sorts of dislike of criminal violence by citizens, criminal violence by illegals, and border security on "top of mind". I'll have to start accusing them of MAGA-try next time we sip some wine. Maybe the tide is turning just a bit as left of left ideologies are getting rightfully exposed as fomenters of division, distrust...just like much of what the right wingnuts have been rightfully accused of in their own special ways of thinking. My mind is open to the possibility both extremes are the problem. The Harvard president's saga has fostered amazing discourse on DEI, CRT, racism, and our educational system's failures. Check out The Glenn Show on YouTube if you are of a mind. And not just the Claudine Gay video.

Gonna just agree to disagree with your Fentanyl take.

You are a master, good sir, of putting words, intent, and assumptions on behalf of many posters on this board into print. Socrates was quoted (apocryphally, perhaps) as saying "strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." Things are intensely personal here in many threads and between many individual posters who have squared off into personal cage fighting. Idea focused discussions seem more interesting. I am by no means suggesting you are the possessor of a weak or average mind, but rather a propensity to presume and project is prevalent, as is "taking things personally". I actually struggle to picture you as the Republican you claim to be, but have never put that in print because I can easily comprehend any and all of us being capable of having brains that don't dogmatically function on party lines drawn in the sand by our leaders, mainstream media, and social tribalistic constructs which keep us divided in our hive think echo chamber clubhouses.

All said, I do appreciate your take, I always learn about myself when others observe and report, and I am if nothing an imperfect thinker and on my good days an aspirational mid level intellectual. As I said above - Terrible and More Terrible as choices in November really makes me sad, angry, and helpless. P.S. The "More Terrible" is Trump. I'd rather write in The Rent's Too Damn High guy!

NPR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0R9QedwG4

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-sieg ... 46252ac24c

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... ants-guns/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna79755

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... 6/2793649/

But keep believing no one brought guns, much less thousands of rounds of ammo confiscated, hundreds of knives, long blades, etc.

Your Jan 6 denialism is abhorrent to me, pure MAGA. The idea that the shooting of Babbitt wasn't fully justified is simply crazy, but again the MAGA cult is strong in you. Tragic yes that a delusional woman, ex military, bought so hard into the lies told to her by those trying to make people like her angry that she took violent action against police, mere yards away from Congressional staff and others including those the mob was threatening to kill, breaching the last physical barrier...

Many think the police should have shot many more offenders, earlier. I disagree, but I applaud the enormous restraint and courage it took to fight hand to hand instead.

No, that was a fan who called you out on the "follow the laws" matter. I called you out on the "one single firearm" nonsense next to it.

"One single firearm. Seems like even gun crazy militia preppers follow the laws."

Nope, many guns. But it's interesting that you imagine there was just one. You ain't hearing that in the mainstream media, because it's just not factual. Multiple prosecutions have included gun charges now. Guilty pleas, convictions. So, where are you hearing it that you wrote with such certainty?

Of course people of all political persuasions are worried about gun violence and border security.

But, MAGA has openly embraced the 2nd Amendment nut job absolutists. And yes, MAGA has embraced the white nationalists who see immigration through their bigoted lens. They embrace those extremes as core, and they embrace those extremists as 'patriots'. The Republican Party I've been a member of for 4 decades didn't do so. Reagan didn't do so. Dole didn't. Neither Bush. Not McCain, not Romney, not Cheney ...but Trump did. MAGA did.

Most important is the Jan 6 insurrection denialism, but this is really all about authoritarian power and making people angry and afraid, whatever ways they can do so.

When you have something you're 'passionate' about that isn't in the MAGA songbook, let us know. I'm just not buying it, given that at every turn young from the MAGA songbook.

The mischaracterization of the Babbitt incident is straight out of the Tucker Carlson playbook. 100% lies.

Babbitt illegally entered the Capitol building. She was part of a mob that was charging towards a location where members of Congress were located, which the mob knew. She witnessed from mere feet away the smashing and breaking of a door and window leading to the location of members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi.

Babbitt then climbed through the broken window. As she was doing that, her fellow insurrectionists warned her three or more times that the police officer on the other side had a gun. The police officer warned her at least twice to stop.

With knowledge, then, that the man she was charging toward was a police officer armed with a gun, and having been warned twice by him to stop, she kept moving toward him and the members of Congress. When she was shot, she was maybe 75 feet from Nancy Pelosi.

The police officer was doing his job, protecting members of Congress. I suppose we’ll never know what her true intentions were vis-à-vis Pelosi, but it is certainly reasonable to conclude it appeared she intended to do her harm.

njbill wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 10:54 pm The mischaracterization of the Babbitt incident is straight out of the Tucker Carlson playbook. 100% lies.

Babbitt illegally entered the Capitol building. She was part of a mob that was charging towards a location where members of Congress were located, which the mob knew. She witnessed from mere feet away the smashing and breaking of a door and window leading to the location of members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi.

Babbitt then climbed through the broken window. As she was doing that, her fellow insurrectionists warned her three or more times that the police officer on the other side had a gun. The police officer warned her at least twice to stop.

With knowledge, then, that the man she was charging toward was a police officer armed with a gun, and having been warned twice by him to stop, she kept moving toward him and the members of Congress. When she was shot, she was maybe 75 feet from Nancy Pelosi.

The police officer was doing his job, protecting members of Congress. I suppose we’ll never know what her true intentions were vis-à-vis Pelosi, but it is certainly reasonable to conclude it appeared she intended to do her harm.

Yet no one on this forum can explain why the US Capital was left unprotected. It was common knowledge of the rally happening that day. Common sense would have dictated out of prudence that security would have been beefed up at the Capital. Even with that knowledge absolutely nothing was done. From what I have read the optics of a 1000 national guard troops in front of the capital steps would have been " bad optics" That would be in contrast to the "bad optics" of a 1000 morons storming the building.

This doesn't excuse the actions of those morons that day. It also should not excuse the fact the people in charge of security at the capital took no proactive security measures at all. It's like the events of 9/11 were completely forgotten in Washington DC. There is a phrase often used to explain why security should be so vital today... " Out of an overabundance of caution security was beefed up" With the knowledge that a very large crowd was gathering that day no one in charge of security at the capital said " oh snap" let's get more security at the capital. When you fail to prepare then you are prepared to fail. I wonder if security SOP at the nations capital has been changed??

Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:18 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

I'll tell you: It doesn't make any difference to me when evaluating the event itself. Thousands of people breached the Capitol, destroyed property, entered the offices of sitting members of Congress, and attempted to impede the orderly and proper transfer of power from one elected administration to another, and the guy who whipped them into the crowd-frenzy sat around eating overcooked hamburgers for hours. Twenty-twenty hindsight is good for planning for a future event of this sort. I doubt anyone expected what happened. The palaver around security cannot exonerate Trump or his movement from responsibility for this signal event in our lifetimes. This mainstreamed violence as a political tool in our country. Just saying.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:25 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:18 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

I'll tell you: It doesn't make any difference to me when evaluating the event itself. Thousands of people breached the Capitol, destroyed property, entered the offices of sitting members of Congress, and attempted to impede the orderly and proper transfer of power from one elected administration to another, and the guy who whipped them into the crowd-frenzy sat around eating overcooked hamburgers for hours. Twenty-twenty hindsight is good for planning for a future event of this sort. I doubt anyone expected what happened. The palaver around security cannot exonerate Trump or his movement from responsibility for this signal event in our lifetimes. This mainstreamed violence as a political tool in our country. Just saying.

Sure okay. I was just responding to your specific post re that very "palaver." Seems to me though that if the NG had been there, all of this could have been avoided. Of course that would not have worked out so well for the Dems.

Classic victim blaming. Do you blame Lincoln because he didn’t have enough security at the theater that night? Kennedy because he was riding in an open air car that day? Sheesh.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:40 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:25 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:18 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

I'll tell you: It doesn't make any difference to me when evaluating the event itself. Thousands of people breached the Capitol, destroyed property, entered the offices of sitting members of Congress, and attempted to impede the orderly and proper transfer of power from one elected administration to another, and the guy who whipped them into the crowd-frenzy sat around eating overcooked hamburgers for hours. Twenty-twenty hindsight is good for planning for a future event of this sort. I doubt anyone expected what happened. The palaver around security cannot exonerate Trump or his movement from responsibility for this signal event in our lifetimes. This mainstreamed violence as a political tool in our country. Just saying.

Sure okay. I was just responding to your specific post re that very "palaver." Seems to me though that if the NG had been there, all of this could have been avoided. Of course that would not have worked out so well for the Dems.

How so? What is the basis for your last statement? Is your premise that the Democrats deliberately left the Capitol under-secured to encourage a riot or insurrection? to what end and purpose?

IMHO that's conspiracy kool-aid material.

njbill wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:44 am Classic victim blaming. Do you blame Lincoln because he didn’t have enough security at the theater that night? Kennedy because he was riding in an open air car that day? Sheesh.

Classic silly analogies njbill

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:46 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:40 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:25 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:18 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

I'll tell you: It doesn't make any difference to me when evaluating the event itself. Thousands of people breached the Capitol, destroyed property, entered the offices of sitting members of Congress, and attempted to impede the orderly and proper transfer of power from one elected administration to another, and the guy who whipped them into the crowd-frenzy sat around eating overcooked hamburgers for hours. Twenty-twenty hindsight is good for planning for a future event of this sort. I doubt anyone expected what happened. The palaver around security cannot exonerate Trump or his movement from responsibility for this signal event in our lifetimes. This mainstreamed violence as a political tool in our country. Just saying.

Sure okay. I was just responding to your specific post re that very "palaver." Seems to me though that if the NG had been there, all of this could have been avoided. Of course that would not have worked out so well for the Dems.

How so? What is the basis for your last statement? Is your premise that the Democrats deliberately left the Capitol under-secured to encourage a riot or insurrection? to what end and purpose?

IMHO that's conspiracy kool-aid material.

How did you know I had kool-aid on my freedom flakes this morning? It must be kismet!

Pretty apt if you ask me.

But just keep on defending the insurrectionists and their conduct on January 6 and your hero Trump. It’s a free country. At least for now.

njbill wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:50 am Pretty apt if you ask me.

But just keep on defending the insurrectionists and their conduct on January 6 and your hero Trump. It’s a free country. At least for now.

Wow njbill! "defending the insurrectionists"? Only a lawyer could come up with that one. Nice work.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:49 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:46 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:40 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:25 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:18 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:08 am Maybe the "lack of security" was the result of security concerns/preparations not keeping up with the reality of political violence. In retrospect, I suppose it seems like a terminal lack of preparedness. But at the time, did any of us believe that the MAGAs would storm the Capitol and that the President would do nothing for hours except watch TV? Live and learn. Now we know political violence and threats of violence are a standard part of the Trump "leadership," to keep people in line, and to keep moderate voices silent.

In advance, didn't someone request the National Guard be called up to be at the rally? And wasn't that request denied by a D.C. Dem politician?

Just asking...

I'll tell you: It doesn't make any difference to me when evaluating the event itself. Thousands of people breached the Capitol, destroyed property, entered the offices of sitting members of Congress, and attempted to impede the orderly and proper transfer of power from one elected administration to another, and the guy who whipped them into the crowd-frenzy sat around eating overcooked hamburgers for hours. Twenty-twenty hindsight is good for planning for a future event of this sort. I doubt anyone expected what happened. The palaver around security cannot exonerate Trump or his movement from responsibility for this signal event in our lifetimes. This mainstreamed violence as a political tool in our country. Just saying.

Sure okay. I was just responding to your specific post re that very "palaver." Seems to me though that if the NG had been there, all of this could have been avoided. Of course that would not have worked out so well for the Dems.

How so? What is the basis for your last statement? Is your premise that the Democrats deliberately left the Capitol under-secured to encourage a riot or insurrection? to what end and purpose?

IMHO that's conspiracy kool-aid material.

How did you know I had cool-aid on my freedom flakes this morning? It must be kismet!

Kismet spelled with a K like Kook-Aid....or you have OD'd on Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson.

You might want to reread your own posts. That’s exactly what you are doing.

njbill wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:57 am You might want to reread your own posts. That’s exactly what you are doing.

Your spin counselor... nothing more. Reminder: Biden and Trump are both an embarrassment to the country. I will not vote if those are my choices. What the peops did who stormed the Capitol on J6 was wrong. Of course none of my posts in past matter to you... keep on spinning!

You blame the lack of security for the criminal action on January 6. You say the Democrats wanted the violence, etc. That’s defending the insurrectionists. Pretty simple.

But don’t worry, if your hero Trump gets back into office, he’ll pardon all the insurrectionists.

More proof that proper security matters. And, why there would not have been an all out flooding of security, "as is typical" with events like these, is rather unsettling.

If everyone believed Trump was a train wreck, for his entire term, claiming he was unstable, while following all the push back on voting fraud prior to 06JAN, why would security be less than desired AND not taken seriously? It just strange but maybe it shows just how vulnerable and inept our leaders truly are.