Saw a documentary on PBS last night about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. There were numerous scenes of the occupiers cradling and practicing with their high powered weapons... mostly souped up AR-15s (many of these men belonged to far-right militias). In interviews, they repeatedly claimed they were not dangerous or aggressive nor that they were bullying people. ( someone in the documentary actually said, "this is how ranchers are so they weren't scared" ). What is the cognitive dissonance going on here? If someone walks around with a high powered weapon, that is intended for intimidation. Carrying weapons meant for the military is an act of aggression. How can you display a weapon like that and NOT be considered a terrorist, even if you're "WPLU" (white. people. like. us.). The verdicts in that case have got to be some of the most twisted in US history.
Posted by DruviusMake it make sense.
Posted by FrostyJim...what a sad situation.
Posted by ButtercupI doubt she said it buts it's cute.
Posted by Smurfing101
Posted by DruviusAh yes, modern America.
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by MoravianSad but true.
Posted by DruviusAlways loved this one.
Posted by TejasAnti trump pistol. Do you have mixed feelings about it?
Posted by TejasLook at this scary gun!
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.