Lol, stun guns. The only weapons that you should take seriously in a situation like that are firearms.

“Stun guns” are in the headline as an example but the article also describes conventional firearms like handguns and rifles.

No, you're conflating people who were in DC with the yokels who "stormed" the capitol. As I recall, only one of the yokels had a gun. But it makes for more polarization if we can all make it seem as though they all had guns!

How many of those weapons were discharged? And how many were “seized” is not as interesting as how many were being held illegally? The government can illegally seize all sorts of things from citizens, including cash, but the process of doing so doesn’t make the original possession a crime

I was answering the question about whether any were armed or not, of which, the answer is yes: some absolutely were.

Getting a permit to carry in DC is extremely difficult to the point where there's no chance any of the protestors had one. That makes possession illegal. Also, a lack of proper licensing is mentioned several times in the article.

Hmm, that’s a good point - I’d forgotten that I used to have to leave my firearms in safe territory back in Arlington VA before visiting DC proper