That’s cute. “Armed storming.” Isn’t showing up with arms at hand to protest the government covered by your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment inalienable right? I coulda sworn it was …
I do believe it was assault rifles that were banned under Reagan in CA.
Hmmm.
Shout that from the rooftops!
Why? …
How do you think the US congress would react if platoon of Rangers came storming in with their weapons unannounced?
That’s BS, the even committed terrorist acts.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro all fed kids too.
What’s the difference between “storming” and walking? Was it a gun-free zone?
Think hard and if you come up with some answers of your own we’ll discuss them.
Ah. So you’ve got nothing. Ok…
I’ve got no more patience for your willful ignorance or anklebiting trolling.
Now try applying just a modicum of logic for a change. If what they did was already illegal why would the legislature have felt the need to pass a law against it?
It must be hard being you.
I must suck being you, being so hard up for attention you have to troll the internet because nobody wants to play with you at home.
Tell us about the founding fathers.
Bless you, my son. And try to stop marrying crazy women.
Not even close… The “armed storming of the capitol” occurred on May 2, 1967. The Mullford Act was in response to the Black Panther Party patrols in Oakland. The “armed storming of the capitol” was in response to the debate on the Mullford Act itself.
The patrols in Oakland where a result of the shooting and killing of unarmed teenager named Matthew Johnson. The patrols were the 1960’s version of copwatching… Hmmm… somewhat similar to the BLM movement of today…
Do I need to define “passed” for you? Not “proposed”, but “passed”.
I’ve never stated that is The reason it was passed.
It is the last check on gov’t oppression but that’s far from the sole reason behind it’s passage.
lololol oh man this thread is awesome… i love the blatant ignoring of facts
