The media has used the term "armed insurrection" 2,339 times to describe the Capitol riot despite no evidence of anyone having a gun on them. Why is that?
· Mar 6, 2021 ·

Are you an extremist seditionist plotting armed insurrection to overthrow Democracy? Well, if you believe that 2+2=4 or think unapproved thoughts, you don't get a choice, my friend.

Since the incident on January 6 where a bunch of neckbeards, overly-excited grandmothers, and viking wannabes broke into the U.S. Capitol, the media has worked day and night to tell us how extreme these individuals are and how they came THIS close to overthrowing America in a coup.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner just did a search for their use of the phrase "armed insurrection" and found that the media has used it 2,339 times in the last two months.

Here is an example:

The problem?

There is no evidence that anyone involved in the Capitol riot had a firearm on them.

Sure, you say, but I'm just a snarky conservative and therefore basically Hitler. Of course I would say that!

Well, perhaps you'd listen to Jill Sanborn, an FBI assistant director for their Counterterrorism Division, when she was being questioned by Sen. Ron Johnson in a hearing this week:

Sen. Johnson: "How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds during that day?"

Assistant Director Sanborn: "To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point. But I don't want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol Police. But to my knowledge, none."

Johnson: "So nobody has been charged with an actual firearm weapon in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds?"

Sanborn: "Correct. The closest we came was the vehicle that had the Molotov cocktails in it. And when we did a search of that vehicle later on, there was a weapon."

Johnson: "How many shots were fired that we know of?"

Sanborn: "I believe the only shots that were fired were the ones that results in the death of the one lady" [The woman killed by the Capitol Police].

Sounds like "armed insurrection" to me!

So when are we going to get a fact-check from Snopes or Politifact? When will we get a retraction from CBS or WaPo? When will YouTube and Twitter suspend their accounts for "disinformation" that is leading Americans to believe a false narrative?

Answer: Never. They're too busy running cover for why the riot was ackshually armed insurrection.

A few of the rioters did have baseball bats, bear spray, and flagsticks. In one case, a person literally used a CRUTCH to hit the police. Oooh, the fate of the Republic stood on the very edge of a knife! Dear me!

The left argues that "armed" could mean many things. Funny, I don't recall them talking about Antifa and BLM rioters being "armed" with umbrellas, bricks, fireworks, and bottles full of chemicals.

When you hear the term "armed" in a story, 99% of you will think of one thing:

And that's the point.

It's amazing that the millions and millions (and millions) of aSsAuLt wEaPoNs in the nation were completely absent from a supposed assault where rioters wanted to install the theocratic dictatorship from the Handmaid's Tale. Apart from a few bozos who were arrested far away from the scene with weapons in their vehicles, I guess the others just forgot to bring them!

The point here isn't to diminish the dunderheaded derangement of those who decided to smash their way into Congress. The point is that the media is radically leveraging the situation in a literal disinformation campaign to dehumanize the political right as literal terrorists.

Of course, maybe the media just meant they had physical arms attached to their bodies. We can't be too careful about what one might do with such deadly assault weapons:

Ready to join the conversation? Subscribe today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.