On January 6, 2021 an armed shooter could have done to Congress

[milestogo]

what the shooter did in Uvalde.

There was chaos that day. One person, with a legally owned assault weapon, could have slaughtered as many members of Congress as they wanted. And if there were more shooters, they could have killed everyone present.

[exboyfil]

1. And technically they could have been pardoned by Trump

Trust me I worried all the way to after inauguration. I thought there was a very real possibility that we would have had the puppet Grassley as the next President. Once the Georgia Senators arrived and Lahey became pro temp it became less likely.

There was a very good reason that Biden's SS detail was changed. Harris was onsite in Washington. Feinstein was at the Capitol.

[PTWB]

2. That's unlikely.

They’d have received the Ashli Babbitt treatment.

The January 6th traitors are very lucky that many more of them were not shot as a result of their violence.

[exboyfil]

3. That is what I was thinking if they got to Pence

but on the other hand it looks like some members of the SS were actually cooperating with Trump's people so who knows.

[Mister Ed]

4. Babbitt was unarmed, and felled by a pistol.

The OP is asking what would have been the outcome if she and others like her had the sort of armament and armor that the Uvalde killer had.

If they'd been armed like that, then even Ashli Babbitt would not have gotten the Ashli Babbitt treatment.

[PTWB]

7. That's nonsense.

There would have been more blood had some of the rioters been armed with, and used, their weapons. But the blood would have been theirs.

Do you have any inkling the firepower that the secret service and capitol police had at their disposal? It would have been a MAGA massacre.

[Mister Ed]

8. I guess the OP's hypothetical question can only yield hypothetical answers.

The question of what woulda happened if the insurrectionists had been heavily armed has prompted my belief that they woulda done much greater harm, and your belief that they woulda been hastily dispatched by the defenders. The question, and our answers, are entirely speculative.

[Chin music]

10. Guns were secured. Locked up. Unavailable.

As per inside collaborators orders.

[PTWB]

12. Lol

Sure, some firearms were secured in the armory but every capitol police officer and secret service agent there was armed.

[PTWB]

15. I don't subscribe to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories

Those belong to the right wing MAGA and anti-vaxx loons.

Do you have any facts to back up your claim that the capitol police were “in on it”?

[PTWB]

17. I'm not attacking you.

I’m attacking tinfoil hat loony conspiracy theories.

“Do your own research”

Where have I heard that before?

You made a claim. I asked you to support it. You declined.

🤷🏻‍♂️

[PTWB]

19. Tsk tsk.

Shouldn’t get so upset when someone asks you to support a claim you made. You said the capitol police were “in on it” and have, thus far, refused to substantiate that claim with evidence.

[PTWB]

22. Lol that's not how that works

When someone makes a claim, especially such an incendiary claim, it is incumbent upon them to support that claim with evidence.

“Do your own research!!”

“Prove me wrong!!”

Come on, now. You made the claim. Support it if you can.

[PTWB]

24. Yes they are.

Good thing I’m attacking your argument and not you personally.

I’m flattered by your suggestion that I’m responsible for the standard practice in any discourse, discussion, debate, or argument that the person who makes a claim is responsible for proving that claim.

Flattered indeed! Alas, that standard practice has been around far longer than I have been.

[PTWB]

26. You made an extraordinary, incendiary claim. It is your obligation to support that claim.

You did not provide any proof or evidence in support of that claim at the time you made it and refused to provide such evidence when I requested it. In fact, you told me to "do my own research" and told me to "prove you wrong."

Again, I'm asking for evidence to support your claim that the capitol police were "in on it" and if you take that request for evidence as an attack on you personally, then I don't know what to tell you. It is not an attack on you personally. It is a request for evidence to support a claim that you made.

I've read plenty of baseless conspiracy theories over the years. In 2020 they were focused on COVID-19 vaccines and the virus in general ("DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!" was their rallying cry) and the "stolen" election "PROVE ME WRONG" they'd say when I pointed out that their claims had no evidence to support them and no basis in reality.

Tinfoil hat conspiracy theories have no place in a rational, logical discussion. There's a reason that none of those right winger's conspiracy theories had any impact on the outcome of Biden's victory. They weren't based on reality, there was no evidence to support them, and they were purely emotional responses by people who lacked the capacity to analyze the situation objectively.

We're better than that.

When people make claims they're responsible for supporting those claims. That's the standard practice. There's a reason it's the standard practice.

[PTWB]

30. Thanks, I'll take it.

Your post claiming that the capitol police were “in on it” certainly remains what it was when you posted it — it’s an outlandish, unsupported, unsubstantiated, and as of yet evidence less claim.

Please, in the future, before you post things like that, make sure you have evidence or sources to support those claims.

We are better than the radical right wingers who peddle baseless conspiracy theories.

I’m sorry you took my request for evidence supporting your claim so personally. It wasn’t personal.

[uponit7771]

6. There were 85 armed traitors at the capital complex that day, how do you know this?! tia

[Walleye]

5. The only reason they weren't armed to the teeth, they knew DC's strict gun laws

They had an arsenal in a motel room across the river in Virginia

[anarch]

11. they had a plan in place; didn't go through with it for some reason

probably b/c the guy at the top dropped the ball by not shutting down the internet and seizing control of all broadcast media, and declaring Martial Law and all that. Probably a good thing for the rest of us that the figurehead they chose is an actual moron, and not any kind of serious man.

[FakeNoose]

14. You're correct that it COULD have happened, but it's not likely

The assault rifles are bulky and difficult to conceal. However a smaller, lighter handgun could easily have been smuggled into the Capitol because people were wearing winter jackets that day. Once the doors and windows were broken, many people just walked in without have to climb or scramble. A shooter with a small handgun wouldn't have been able to fire off that many rounds before a LEO spotted him and brought him down. Thank the good Lord for that!

[Hortensis]

20. Also the Capitol Police? While the senate chamber was being cleared,

for instance, police with pistols were there guarding every door (there were a lot of doors) and an officer with an automatic weapon was in the center prepared to take out any crowd so unfortunate as to break in.

In the house chamber, the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on the spot had his gun on her for some while before she was finally able to barely start to climb in.

Even if someone could have gotten an automatic weapon that far, it wouldn't have been quite the same.

[Mr.Bill]

27. The Secret Service is well armed.

Watch video of when Reagan was shot. Seconds after the shots were fired, an SS man pulled what looks like an Uzi out from under his jacket.

[milestogo]

29. Does everyone in Congress have SS Protection?

[Mr.Bill]

31. No, but Mike Pence did.

I assume probably Nancy Pelosi also.