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.