Last night I was watching some of the reaction to the Trump/Colorado removal story and a few things struck me when it came to the right's definition of what an "insurrection" actually is and this is what I came up with:

To them, an insurrection must last a "long" time and not just a mere 3 hours.  Next, it has to be overwhelmingly violent with many, many deaths, and oh, only involve other people than Republicans. 

Now, my issue is this - in this day and age with our advances in technology, the possibility of a non-violent, short-in-duration insurrection could very easily happen and in relative terms, almost did. 

Think of it - more and more, I am becoming of the belief that the majority of Americans simply have not fully understood the "fake electors" madness that almost went through. I really believe that if all Americans were polled on what a "fake elector" is, the majority of answers would involve the belief that a "fake elector" was nothing more than things like cranky Uncle George down in South Carolina voting twice or purposely not voting in the proper place. 

Not only that, but I do not think most Americans understand how close this scheme came to being pulled off and how next time, it just might work.

And to be honest, if one looks at Jan 6 and compares it to past insurrections, yes, it was a more tepid one, but only in comparison.  What worries me is with societal changes, future insurrections just like Jan 6 are even more possible with changes in American culture and technology. Even more frightening is that in the future, such insurrections could possibly succeed even within the absence of violence.  

Now, on a semi-related note that illustrates the hypocrisy of the right when it comes to "originalism" in the US Constitution, we toss in guns.  On guns, while the framers had the technological image of a musket in mind when crafting the Second Amendment, the right seems alright with changing technology to throw in weapons specifically made to kill humans in a war and they seem more than willing to also define "insurrection" in the same way.  My point is that, in this day and age, with changes in technology, an insurrection could be carried out with no violence and by the flip of a switch here and there, or just by the refusal of a politician to follow the will of voters.

So, in one case, the right just loves judicial activism to include almost any firearm but is refusing to apply the same standard to the definition of an "insurrection" and how methods of insurrection can change over time and certainly have changed.

Another thing that really irritates me is how as of right now, not many are pointing out that an "insurrection" does not necessarily have to mean overwhelming violence in today's world to succeed (we always seem to forget that old saying how a person with a briefcase can steal more than a thief with a gun).