Serious question.
Cliven Bundy has utilized federal lands to graze his cattle for free for decades. In any reasonable estimation this is worth many, many thousands of dollars and is in all ways federal welfare that he has been taking advantage of.
Do you think that if a black urban family had received so many thousands of dollars over decades and when the government tried to stop them called many armed supporters to enforce their welfare that people would treat it the same?
Is this black family receiving (i.e. not paying) thousands of dollars over decades in an analogous situation? In this case, the BLM holds these lands in trust, with their original and continuing purpose being to ensure grazing by preventing overgrazing. The sole question to Bundy's legitimacy is whether the BLM acted in good faith when it first drastically reduced, then ended his grazing rights.
At the moment, regardless of my deep suspicion of the BLM I must conclude that the BLM did act in good faith simply since I've seen no evidence to the contrary. But that does not reduce the question to the level of anyone taking government resources.
Don during our american revolution very similar phrases were spoken about our forefathers who fought for our right to be able to stand up against a tyrannical federal government. They even had propaganda campaigns preaching the same drivel you're spreading here - that if you stand up against an inappropriate government force you are not a patriot and should be ashamed.
I'm sure you know this, and are being willfully ignorant rather than honestly debating the topic.
A patriot supports their country and the people, not their government.
And as I've said numerous times, I do not support bundy or what he's doing. I ONLY support our citizen's rights to stand up against inappropriate government force.
If federal agents show up at some housing project armed to the teeth to round up all of the welfare people at gunpoint over mooching off the handout train I would support their right to stand up to it using force as well.
It's not about what bundy did or didn't do, it's about the reaction from the federal government being completely inappropriate.
What's next, no knock federal warrants over unpaid traffic tickets?
I too support our citizen's rights to stand up against inappropriate government force or tyrannical government, or a host of other ills. But that carries with it the responsibility to judge when such armed resistance is justified, and there the bar must be very, very high. To date I've seen no such evidence at all, let alone enough to be convincing. I've not even seen any attempt to provide such evidence. That government has attempted to wipe out his means of living is not in and of itself evidence of tyrannical government simply because maintaining his means of living, while being the BLM's original reason for establishment, is not now the BLM's only reason for existence. For that matter, we can't even be absolutely sure that the BLM's original reason for establishment, preserving the open range, isn't the true reason behind the BLM restricting, then closing his grazing land; the twenty year gap between closing and acting argues for this, but not I think definitively. Similarly, if the BLM's reason for closing his grazing range is legitimate, then the force used to remove his cattle is legitimate.
As suspicious as I am of the BLM, as part of the federal government it must have the presumption of legitimacy. Even the BATFE must have the presumption of legitimacy. As such and considering that we've seen nothing presented to the contrary, I must agree with DVC that Bundy et al have the status of domestic terrorists and should be treated appropriately.