By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Newly released evidence from the House Select Committee’s January 6th report and federal court documents reveals that numerous individuals involved in the Capitol attack possessed firearms and tactical gear, contradicting claims that the event was unarmed. Testimony, including that of Cassidy Hutchinson, indicates that high-ranking White House officials were aware of the presence of armed Trump supporters before the attack. The sheer number of weapons confiscated near the Capitol, along with accounts of armed individuals openly carrying weapons, underscores the potential for far greater violence. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Trump and his allies continue to propagate the false narrative of a peaceful protest, hindering accountability for the insurrection.
Read the original article here
Yes, January 6th Was a Heavily Armed Insurrection
January 6th was, unequivocally, a heavily armed insurrection. The sheer volume of individuals carrying weapons, even if many were left in vehicles or hotel rooms outside the immediate vicinity of the Capitol, speaks volumes. The presence of these weapons, coupled with the violent acts committed that day, paints a clear picture of an attempt to forcefully seize power. To downplay the armament involved is to diminish the gravity of the event.
The idea that January 6th was merely a “riot” is a gross understatement. The intent behind the actions of the rioters was far more sinister than simple rioting. The goal was not just to disrupt the proceedings but to actively subvert the democratic process, an act of insurrection. The fact that some weapons were left outside the Capitol building does not negate their presence and the potential for their use. It demonstrates a calculated approach, designed to avoid immediate charges while still possessing the means to enact violence.
The presence of weapons, even if not overtly displayed in the Capitol building itself, significantly altered the situation. Imagine the drastic shift in the situation if gun control laws had been less stringent. A scenario where a substantial portion of the crowd openly carried firearms would have dramatically increased the potential for bloodshed and escalated the violence exponentially. This suggests a premeditated plan that was only partially executed due to existing gun laws. It was not simply a matter of chance or happenstance; the availability of firearms played a key role in the potential escalation of the day’s events.
The accounts of individuals discussing leaving their weapons outside due to fear of legal repercussions highlight the calculated nature of the attack. These individuals were prepared to use violence if necessary and took steps to strategically mitigate the legal risks. This is not indicative of spontaneous, unplanned violence, but rather, a calculated, strategic attempt to overthrow the government. The fact that a few individuals were caught bringing weapons inside further reinforces this point.
Furthermore, the widely available video footage clearly captures the violent acts committed by many participants. The assault on police officers, the destruction of property, and the sheer volume of individuals participating in these acts are irrefutable evidence of an insurrection. The intent to overthrow the government is undeniable. The footage alone is sufficient to show a violent mob intent on upending the democratic process.
The media’s initial framing of the event as a mere “riot” actively downplayed the gravity of the situation. This misrepresentation allowed for the minimization of the event’s significance and the perpetrators’ culpability. However, such a blatant dismissal of the facts is not sustainable. The actions on January 6th were far more significant and dangerous than a simple riot.
The fact that the aftermath saw limited casualties is not a reflection of the lack of weaponry, but rather, a fortunate outcome that could have easily been otherwise. The potential for a far greater loss of life was absolutely real. The outcome was more of an under-performance on the part of the insurrectionists than a failure of the event itself to be heavily armed.
The deletion of text messages by Secret Service agents further casts doubt on the official narrative and suggests a possible cover-up. This lack of transparency only serves to reinforce the notion that the seriousness of the events of January 6th was intentionally downplayed. The missing texts are not just evidence of poor record keeping, they indicate a possible attempt to obfuscate the truth.
The attempts to minimize the violence and downplay the presence of weapons are not just misleading, but dangerous. Ignoring the heavily armed nature of the insurrection allows for the normalization of such events, increasing the probability of future acts of violence against our democracy. It’s imperative to confront the reality of January 6th to prevent similar events in the future.
The event was not a spontaneous outburst of anger; it was a premeditated assault on American democracy. The sheer number of people involved, the calculated planning, and the widespread presence of weapons all point to a heavily armed insurrection. Ignoring these facts risks emboldening future would-be insurrectionists and leaves our democratic system vulnerable. The reality is that January 6th was a deeply troubling event that warrants ongoing scrutiny and a serious commitment to preventing any recurrence.