Fuck Cliven and his brood.

Possibly the most uninformed thing ever posted here.

I'd also point to the 2014 stand-off as proof that well armed citizens can hold tyrants at bay.

How so? The "tyrants" in this instnace simply decided they didn't want to eviscerate the Bundys.

Why is it bad for the government to own a lot of land?

because with the exception of small pockets such as National Parks, that land should belong to the local governments and states. It's a real problem when a state has 85% of its land owned and sealed off by the Federal Government.

As I've said before, the Sagebrush Rebellion is a noble cause

Why though?

Federal government = bad doesn't convince me.

With how you mock certain states for mismanagement why do you want them to have it?

It seemed the Bundys and their supporters had enough fire power to make them think twice. Without them being there in force we would've had Ruby Ridge Part II. I welcome an armed citizenry using its 2nd Amendment rights as Madison envisioned to repel tyrants.

The states and local jurisdictions will at least manage/utilize the land in a manner which benefits their constituents where the current situation is to have it controlled by a bureaucrat in DC who probably never visited the state in the 1st place. Local governments are more receptive to the needs and desires of their citizens than a giant DC bureaucracy.

This, and the fact that the government had grossly under estimated the resistance that they would be meeting up with.

The feds could have brought in additional firepower if so desired. I think the potential negative publicity for escalating the confrontation likely outweighed tactical considerations. The overall strategy seemed to surreptitiously manipulate legal mechanisms to punish the Bundys rather than doing so by overwhelming force--and thereby validating the Bundys anti-government rhetoric.

Does this ruling mean I can cut firewood in Thatcher Woods?

The feds could have brought in additional firepower if so desired. I think the potential negative publicity for escalating the confrontation likely outweighed tactical considerations. The overall strategy seemed to surreptitiously manipulate legal mechanisms to punish the Bundys rather than doing so by overwhelming force--and thereby validating the Bundys anti-government rhetoric.

this is the biggest reason for an armed citizenry. they wouldn't have the firepower of a gvt, but it would be such an absolute mess on the world stage, a power will theoretically think twice.

this is the biggest reason for an armed citizenry. they wouldn't have the firepower of a gvt, but it would be such an absolute mess on the world stage, a power will theoretically think twice.

Whereas if there was government violence against an unarmed citizenry the world would instead just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ?

Don't we have more of an armed citizenry than the rest of the developed world?

Why is it bad for the government to own a lot of land?

Pretty much yes, see Catalonia.

The government tramples on their rights, but escapes criticism on the world stage because they can contain the violence when they are the only party with the guns. If the protesters have guns, a stand-off can ensue and the government is faced with the prospect an armed conflict (which makes them look bad) or backing off and taking the loss. They took the loss here because the Bundys and their supporters were armed.

No we and much of the rest of the world wouldn't have cared about Catalonia regardless of how armed or unarmed they were unless it was relevant to our strategic interests. This isn't close to a parallel with the US or some kind of knockout argument in favor of guns that you keep trying to pretend it is.