> Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat?
You put informants to know what's happening. They knew they did not carry weapons (only very few did).
> The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim.
Oh yeah? When was the country taken over by a small group of people in the past?
> There absolutely was a risk (of a coup d'etat)
Please explain me how things would have turned after more than a day, and how the country would have been run by a bunch of guys with viking hats with 300 million other people not doing anything about it.
> Please explain me how things would have turned after more than a day, and how the country would have been run by a bunch of guys with viking hats with 300 million other people not doing anything about it.
The United States of America has a very real and very well understood domestic terrorism problem. These are not all cartoon characters wearing dumb costumes.
I mentioned Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma city. In case you are unaware Ruby Ride and Waco were both standoffs between the Federal Government and anti-government groups they went sideways and innocent people died. This motivated two men to build a bomb in a truck and blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people. This was in 1995.
Ruby Ridge and Waco are often cited in militia circles as examples of why our government can’t be trusted.
More recently than Oklahoma City there was the Malheur standoff where some tax dodgers occupied a federal building for 40 days. In the end one of them was killed resisting arrest. The leader in that standoff was Ammon Bundy, who has also led other standoffs and the armed mob I mentioned in the Idaho Capitol building.
There is a delicate peace between the US and these terrorists. An event like taking over a state or national capitol or especially a military response to such a takeover could easily trigger a revolution.
You don’t appear to be an American. I encourage you to look into the domestic militia movement. Especially post-Oklahoma City. This is a very real threat.
> An event like taking over a state or national capitol or especially a military response to such a takeover could easily trigger a revolution.
Again I fail to see how occupying a building ends up being a take-over. Even if someone captures the White House, it does not make them the president of the US unless everyone else agrees with it.
As I have exhaustively explained it isn't just occupying a building. It's about the people who are inside that building. In this case congress and the vice president.
There's also an element of symbolism that could embolden similar groups to take over other seats of power.
This isn't about taking over the US Government as it is currently. It is an existential threat to the current paradigm. There's no natural law that says the US must be a federal democratic republic. It could easily be a military dictatorship.
Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants.
> they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes
So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something.