Secondly "insurrection" is only really used (in my experience and from what I've seen in history) when talking about actual attempts to overthrow said authority.
This explains it to me, but is why I disagree with the insurrection label. If armed people really wanted to "kill/hang" politicians and marched into the capitol with the intent to overthrow the government, I (and imo most people) would assume they'd use their weapons/be way more aggressive. You don't go for an insurrection, weapon in hand, and the worse that can be seen is someone having a selfie in Kamala's (?) office/people getting stomped. IMO if you can argue whether someone died from that protest, then it wasn't an insurrection, or else there would be no doubt about it.
Tldr; as far as I've seen there was not enough violence to show that they were going for an insurrection. At most it's a protest that escalated (as a lot of protests do, see BLM), which doesn't warrant the outrage it's getting.
There was one piece missing, that being a singular, previously decided upon leader. It was armed and violent anarchy with the intent to terrorize congress, and people were murdered by this mob.
If they had a leader it would have been an insurrection. That is it.
I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label.
EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."
Comments
This explains it to me, but is why I disagree with the insurrection label. If armed people really wanted to "kill/hang" politicians and marched into the capitol with the intent to overthrow the government, I (and imo most people) would assume they'd use their weapons/be way more aggressive. You don't go for an insurrection, weapon in hand, and the worse that can be seen is someone having a selfie in Kamala's (?) office/people getting stomped. IMO if you can argue whether someone died from that protest, then it wasn't an insurrection, or else there would be no doubt about it.
Tldr; as far as I've seen there was not enough violence to show that they were going for an insurrection. At most it's a protest that escalated (as a lot of protests do, see BLM), which doesn't warrant the outrage it's getting.
There was one piece missing, that being a singular, previously decided upon leader. It was armed and violent anarchy with the intent to terrorize congress, and people were murdered by this mob.
If they had a leader it would have been an insurrection. That is it.
I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label.
EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."