Nice story bro. A lot of what you say is true, but still doesn't answer the question that was posed to you. Talk about a "highly professional terrorist tactic".
So, all of the cameras in the area and everything available on the internet and all you can show me is a guy with zip ties? I'm not buying it.
I'm talking strictly about the people that went into the capitol. If they'd had been armed (by the legal definition of the word) then things would have been much, much worse.
"if you know anything about warfare, then you know anything can be a weapon." Yes, I was trained in the Marine Corps that I can kill someone with a canteen cup. So, if one of these guys had a coffee mug on them, by your definition, they were "armed", right? C'mon man!
"A truck full of rifles, shotguns, and bomb-making supplies was found nearby." - doesn't count
Neither does this - "Some rioters came equipped with bulletproof vests and other military-style gear (helmets, armor, black masks), climbing gear, and insignia. Some moved with military precision as though they had been trained: which they probably had, as right-wing "militia groups" are wont to do."
"The rioter who has come to be known as "zip tie guy" was actually carrying equipment known as Flexicuffs which are more professional and suitable to the purpose of taking hostages." - More professional and suitable than what? I hate to poke fun at your writing style, but when you set up a comparison, you have to finish it. Regardless, anyone can buy them at any Home Depot, Lowe's, Ace Hardware, or any hardware store.
So, again, if you reply, please, I'm challenging you to just post a single picture of an armed (in the legal definition of armed) rioter in the building. Either that or recant your statement that there was an "armed rebellion".