4 ms·

I remember seeing a comment in HN that went like "So some group of people walked into a government building. Big deal." I guess, for people whose world view i

I remember seeing a comment in HN that went like "So some group of people walked into a government building. Big deal." I guess, for people whose world view is so malleable that they can look at an attempt to overthrow the government and say "Some people walked into a government building," it makes perfect sense to feel sorry for Trump being demonized by the Left.

willcipriano 2y ago
Lucky they all forgot their guns that day.
- Timon3 2y ago
  Multiple people were convicted of carrying firearms inside the Capitol on Jan 6th, and it's been documented that weapon caches were prepared close by.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    If they were all armed (looks like a guy had a knife and another claimed to have had his handgun), why didn't they use them?
    - Timon3 2y ago
      Because, due to the actions of a few brave people, they didn't get the chance to use them on any politicians. Let me turn this around - why lie about such an easy-to-check fact? Even RFK has stopped pushing this, why do you continue when it's trivial to disprove?
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        Was the plan to run back for the weapons once the politicians had been spotted? They assumed no resistance until that point? Why wouldn't you arm everyone? As far as what was brought into the building I only see mention of a potential concealed carry handgun or two? The only person shot was a unarmed woman who apparently caused the capitol police to fear for their lives. If they had guns as you claimed then they forgot to use them? Sort of sounds like they forgot the guns, make sense given so many of them were elderly.
        Timon3 2y ago
        I don't have to know the exact plans to disprove your claim that "they all forgot their guns that day". Some people brought guns, and some people specifically stashed guns close by. I mean, why do you think guns were stashed close by? Just for fun? Do you do this as a hobby as well?
        willcipriano 2y ago
        > Do you do this as a hobby as well? I expect many own firearms for hobby purposes.
        Timon3 2y ago
        Really? How often do you stash weapons in close proximity to political events? How many weapons do you usually stash? I'm sure you are aware that I didn't ask whether you own weapons as a hobby. Since we're interacting in good faith and you're surely not attempting to derail the conversation with unrelated remarks, I'm interpreting your answer as affirmative.
        willcipriano 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Timon3 2y ago
        Oh, so you're just fully committing to bad faith? Don't let me stop you, but please be aware that is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        nobody9999 2y ago
        >Oh, so you're just fully committing to bad faith? At least of late, that appears to be GPs raison d'etre[0]. Not sure what that's all about. And more's the pity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919902
mlindner 2y ago
What actually constitutes an "attempt to overthrow a government"? Do you think a random mob would be followed by the country as a whole? Do you have so little faith in the government's institutions that they'd just agree to follow them? Do you think the military would? If an "attempt" is so far flung from reality as to be impossible does it actually make it an attempt? If the mob had been half its size, or a quarter its size, or even one person, is that still an "attempt to overthrow the government"? Even if they'd literally walked in with their guns blazing and killed every single politician they could find, while it'd cause a ton of chaos, the government would still have elections to replace those people killed and government would continue.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  Yes institutions and democracy can resist and win against a small group of armed people taking over the physical seats of the government. But in order to win people have to agree that the act is profoundly antidemocratic and a punishable offence. It becomes more problematic when a sizable part of the population dismisses it as a non-issue. That very fact raises the level of concern several orders of magnitude. The more people dismiss the level of severity of an act of subversion the less faith you can have that the problem will just fix itself. So yeah, it's not a big deal, provided that we all agree it is a big deal. Otherwise it becomes a big deal.
- verzali 2y ago
  That's an extremely naive statement. Massacres of politicans are rarely followed by everything going calmly back to normal, it's much more likely to be followed by more violence, a crackdown on freedoms and liberties and a slide away from democracy.
  - belorn 2y ago
    > Massacres of politicans are rarely followed by everything going calmly back to normal That is correct. Massacres of politicans are generally followed by military factions taking control of a country, also generally a military faction that participated in the massacre. Those are coups. When we have massacre of politicians like the 2011 Norway attacks, we call it a domestic terrorism and throw the guilty into jail, and then everything goes mostly calmly back to normal. The risk that those actually succeed in changing the government of a democracy is thankfully very slim. Obviously they are still very horrible acts.

willcipriano 2y ago

Lucky they all forgot their guns that day.

Timon3 2y ago
Multiple people were convicted of carrying firearms inside the Capitol on Jan 6th, and it's been documented that weapon caches were prepared close by.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  If they were all armed (looks like a guy had a knife and another claimed to have had his handgun), why didn't they use them?
  - Timon3 2y ago
    Because, due to the actions of a few brave people, they didn't get the chance to use them on any politicians. Let me turn this around - why lie about such an easy-to-check fact? Even RFK has stopped pushing this, why do you continue when it's trivial to disprove?
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      Was the plan to run back for the weapons once the politicians had been spotted? They assumed no resistance until that point? Why wouldn't you arm everyone? As far as what was brought into the building I only see mention of a potential concealed carry handgun or two? The only person shot was a unarmed woman who apparently caused the capitol police to fear for their lives. If they had guns as you claimed then they forgot to use them? Sort of sounds like they forgot the guns, make sense given so many of them were elderly.
      - Timon3 2y ago
        I don't have to know the exact plans to disprove your claim that "they all forgot their guns that day". Some people brought guns, and some people specifically stashed guns close by. I mean, why do you think guns were stashed close by? Just for fun? Do you do this as a hobby as well?
        willcipriano 2y ago
        > Do you do this as a hobby as well? I expect many own firearms for hobby purposes.
        Timon3 2y ago
        Really? How often do you stash weapons in close proximity to political events? How many weapons do you usually stash? I'm sure you are aware that I didn't ask whether you own weapons as a hobby. Since we're interacting in good faith and you're surely not attempting to derail the conversation with unrelated remarks, I'm interpreting your answer as affirmative.
        willcipriano 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Timon3 2y ago
        Oh, so you're just fully committing to bad faith? Don't let me stop you, but please be aware that is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        nobody9999 2y ago
        >Oh, so you're just fully committing to bad faith? At least of late, that appears to be GPs raison d'etre[0]. Not sure what that's all about. And more's the pity. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919902

mlindner 2y ago

What actually constitutes an "attempt to overthrow a government"? Do you think a random mob would be followed by the country as a whole? Do you have so little faith in the government's institutions that they'd just agree to follow them? Do you think the military would? If an "attempt" is so far flung from reality as to be impossible does it actually make it an attempt? If the mob had been half its size, or a quarter its size, or even one person, is that still an "attempt to overthrow the government"? Even if they'd literally walked in with their guns blazing and killed every single politician they could find, while it'd cause a ton of chaos, the government would still have elections to replace those people killed and government would continue.

ithkuil 2y ago
Yes institutions and democracy can resist and win against a small group of armed people taking over the physical seats of the government. But in order to win people have to agree that the act is profoundly antidemocratic and a punishable offence. It becomes more problematic when a sizable part of the population dismisses it as a non-issue. That very fact raises the level of concern several orders of magnitude. The more people dismiss the level of severity of an act of subversion the less faith you can have that the problem will just fix itself. So yeah, it's not a big deal, provided that we all agree it is a big deal. Otherwise it becomes a big deal.
verzali 2y ago
That's an extremely naive statement. Massacres of politicans are rarely followed by everything going calmly back to normal, it's much more likely to be followed by more violence, a crackdown on freedoms and liberties and a slide away from democracy.
- belorn 2y ago
  > Massacres of politicans are rarely followed by everything going calmly back to normal That is correct. Massacres of politicans are generally followed by military factions taking control of a country, also generally a military faction that participated in the massacre. Those are coups. When we have massacre of politicians like the 2011 Norway attacks, we call it a domestic terrorism and throw the guilty into jail, and then everything goes mostly calmly back to normal. The risk that those actually succeed in changing the government of a democracy is thankfully very slim. Obviously they are still very horrible acts.