• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Thanks for helping make my point. Claiming they were Biden supporters or antifa or crisis actors is as factually accurate as saying it was an armed invasion.

A murdered police officer and more than a score of his injured colleagues would suggest otherwise.

But as long as you are hung up on semantics maybe we just call the rioters/insurrectionists 'weaponized'! Would that make you happy? After all assault with a deadly weapon doesn't require a firearm according to federal law.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
I also brought social status into it, but I don't see you biting off on that one...

QUOTE="Treetop Flyer, post: 1014080, member: 23117"]
Also for posting an article titled “Ohio police body cam shows he shot an unarmed black man...” to refute the definition of “armed”. The lady at the Capitol that got shot was also unarmed.

Fun fact, unarmed people are dangerous too. But you're right, I strayed from the topic at hand on my post of what an armed person is.
[/QUOTE]
Social status is also completely irrelevant, that’s why I didn’t “bite off on it”. I already stated that unarmed people can be a threat. The unarmed lady that was shot at the Capitol should have heeded the warnings. Absolutely nothing you’ve posted refutes my argument. It wasn’t an “armed invasion” because it wasn’t armed.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
A murdered police officer and more than a score of his injured colleagues would suggest otherwise.

But as long as you are hung up on semantics maybe we just call the rioters/insurrectionists 'weaponized'! Would that make you happy? After all assault with a deadly weapon doesn't require a firearm according to federal law.
A person getting killed doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. Was he killed by an armed person? That would suggest something. But he wasn’t. A crowd beating someone to death with their fists doesn’t make them armed. You’re basically arguing that black is white. What happened at the Capitol can be called a lot of things. Why lie and call it something it clearly wasn’t?
 

OscarMyers

Well-Known Member
None
Social status is also completely irrelevant, that’s why I didn’t “bite off on it”. I already stated that unarmed people can be a threat. The unarmed lady that was shot at the Capitol should have heeded the warnings. Absolutely nothing you’ve posted refutes my argument. It wasn’t an “armed invasion” because it wasn’t armed.

What a strange hill to die on, but at least you're consistent. I hope you never have to defend yourself against an unarmed home intruder carrying a pipe or baseball bat. Might be a tough one to defend in court though. Because I'm sure you will testify that he was unarmed.

We have seemed to come full circle, Ok we're done here.. now?
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
What a strange hill to die on, but at least you're consistent. I hope you never have to defend yourself against an unarmed home intruder carrying a pipe or baseball bat. Might be a tough one to defend in court though. Because I'm sure you will testify that he was unarmed.

We have seemed to come full circle, Ok we're done here.. now?
If someone came in my house with a pipe or a baseball bat I would kill them. With my firearm. And I’d be perfectly justified.

If pointing out the obvious misuse of “armed invasion” is a strange hill to die on, what is intentionally calling an unarmed group armed, or arguing that armed really means unarmed?
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
If someone came in my house with a pipe or a baseball bat I would kill them. With my firearm. And I’d be perfectly justified.

If pointing out the obvious misuse of “armed invasion” is a strange hill to die on, what is intentionally calling an unarmed group armed, or arguing that armed really means unarmed?
So none of the folks going into the capitol were armed? With sidearms?
 

OscarMyers

Well-Known Member
None
If someone came in my house with a pipe or a baseball bat I would kill them. With my firearm. And I’d be perfectly justified.

So we're in agreement, if an armed intruder came into our houses we would be justified in eliminating the threat.

If pointing out the obvious misuse of “armed invasion” is a strange hill to die on, what is intentionally calling an unarmed group armed, or arguing that armed really means unarmed?

A brief incursion on your hill I guess. looking back in this thread, you've been defending the proper use of those two words for the entirety of this thread. I applaud your love of the English language.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
You've got to be kidding me. Whatever the people arrested on 20 January 2017 were doing it wasn't anywhere close to what the people who invaded the Capitol did on 6 January 2021. The fact I have to type that out is a bit staggering to me.

Violently invading the Capitol isn't a protected First Amendment activity, they were actively trying to interefere with the constitutional duties being undertaken by our elected government. They did so with the stated intention and performed the actions of trying to undermine our government by force, and unlike any other protest or riot in modern US history they succeeded even if it was for just a few short hours.

So no, not even fucking close. With the death of a police officer, the injury of more than a score of others along with the unprecendented takeover of the Capitol Buidling there has been no indication, on the part of the DOJ or the judges who have heard the charges so far, to take this lightly.
A fantastic example of willful ignorance.

You wrote "They did so with the stated intention and performed the actions of trying to undermine our government by force..." But refuse to actually read and comprehend the words..."There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition..." written by others. Do tell...what is the difference?

I do not want to put words in your mouth but you appear to imply that a building is in fact our government when the US Capitol is just a structure and the people in it just servants to the electorate. Had the 9/11 attack actually hit the dome (as planned) would America have collapsed? Nope. The rioters of January 6 stopped nothing just as the rioters of January 20, 2017 stopped nothing. The rioters of January 6 DID NOT take over the building, they got inside. Moreover, dirty deeds in that building are hardly unprecedented - the place has suffered three bombings and two shootings in the 20th Century alone. The process survived because the process is stronger than any riot. But the fact is a riot to disrupt the peaceful transition of power is exactly like a riot to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. So, what is your metric? One dead cop...how about hundreds injured? How many private businesses have to be destoryed to make it "equal to" broken windows and a few missing signs on federal property?

Again...I have ZERO sympathy for any person that destroys property. Again...I posit that justice isn't simply blind...it is REQUIRED to be blind.

So, bottom line, totally fucking close. Indeed, "shack," "spot on," "direct hit," completely close.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
What does identifying people armed with firearms have to do with a conversation that's refuting that individuals were armed?

View attachment 29138
I like pointing out pearl clutching. If an armed insurrection or armed invasion happens we won’t need to quibble about what armed means.

I assumed he meant concealed weapons. I have no fucking clue if someone in a crowd of thousands actually was armed. Do you know? Does it matter? No? Ok then.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
A fantastic example of willful ignorance.

You wrote "They did so with the stated intention and performed the actions of trying to undermine our government by force..." But refuse to actually read and comprehend the words..."There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition..." written by others. Do tell...what is the difference?

I do not want to put words in your mouth but you appear to imply that a building is in fact our government when the US Capitol is just a structure and the people in it just servants to the electorate. Had the 9/11 attack actually hit the dome (as planned) would America have collapsed? Nope. The rioters of January 6 stopped nothing just as the rioters of January 20, 2017 stopped nothing. The rioters of January 6 DID NOT take over the building, they got inside. Moreover, dirty deeds in that building are hardly unprecedented - the place has suffered three bombings and two shootings in the 20th Century alone. The process survived because the process is stronger than any riot. But the fact is a riot to disrupt the peaceful transition of power is exactly like a riot to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. So, what is your metric? One dead cop...how about hundreds injured? How many private businesses have to be destoryed to make it "equal to" broken windows and a few missing signs on federal property?

Again...I have ZERO sympathy for any person that destroys property. Again...I posit that justice isn't simply blind...it is REQUIRED to be blind.

So, bottom line, totally fucking close. Indeed, "shack," "spot on," "direct hit," completely close.
Difference between words and actions.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Difference between words and actions.
Disagree...

2017...Actions.

29140

29141

29142

29143

2021...Actions

29144

29145

29146

View attachment 29147

So....Sesame Street this for me. Why is one of these things not like the other? Why is the big white government building "more" than the "that was my life savings" franchise?

Scores of police were injured in 2017.

Scores of police officers were injured in 2021.

Yes, there is the murder, but that was an individual act just as the Dallas cop shootings were an individual act and not the responsibility of BLM. I hoe the murderer is punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law.

But, you have no historical, legal, or ethical high ground to tell anyone that what happened on January 6th was "worse" or "better" than other political riots that damaged/destroyed property.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Disagree...

2017...Actions.

View attachment 29140

View attachment 29141

View attachment 29142

View attachment 29143

2021...Actions

View attachment 29144

View attachment 29145

View attachment 29146

View attachment 29147

So....Sesame Street this for me. Why is one of these things not like the other? Why is the big white government building "more" than the "that was my life savings" franchise?

Scores of police were injured in 2017.

Scores of police officers were injured in 2021.

Yes, there is the murder, but that was an individual act just as the Dallas cop shootings were an individual act and not the responsibility of BLM. I hoe the murderer is punished to the absolute fullest extent of the law.

But, you have no historical, legal, or ethical high ground to tell anyone that what happened on January 6th was "worse" or "better" than other political riots that damaged/destroyed property.
2017 was fiery but mostly peaceful
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
So....Sesame Street this for me. Why is one of these things not like the other?
Because of who was in the buildings (Congress) and what they were doing (certifying the election).

Knock all the rioters in Seattle on the head like seal pups, I'm fine with it. But the thing at the Capitol was of a different ilk.
 
Top