Pretty damn close to terrorists, certainly anybody who aimed a weapon at a federal agent should face serious charges, although that won't happen. A sizable chunk of this country is completely unhinged and deranged and it's not getting better.

At the same time, there's excess on the other side, law enforcement is trending towards militarization, which isn't good for anybody. However, the proper response to that is politics, law, media, not a pretense to enact your pent up fantasies of gunning down tyrannical government agents.

Hopefully this doesn't derail the thread too badly, but I feel that it needs to be mentioned when discussing whether these people were 'terrorists': Former Sheriff Willing to Let Wife and Daughter Die in Front Lines

Though to be fair, it appeared that the women were willing participants and not human shields pulled from the general citizenry. At the least this shows the level of delusion and fanaticism that these people were engaging in.

Uh, yeah. I absolutely do consider these these stupid ****ers to be a real threat to me.

So having big guns = tyranny? What is cruel or oppressive about the government actions here? Do you think, if it had wanted to, the government force would have been unable to accomplish its goal because of Cliven Bundy's merry band of "patriots?" I'm mocking people who think the government's actions in this case rise to a level of tyranny worth bearing arms over. As Huehue pointed out, black people routinely get imprisoned and shot for far less, yet none of these simpleton "patriots" bat an eye, much less lift a trigger finger to their precious guns to help those people.

So let me get this straight, you support the expansion of para military forces in the federal govt when they are used against people unnecessarily that you don't agree with politically. Got it.

ITT taking up a sniper position, pointing your loaded assault rifle at someone with them in the crosshairs of your scope and you talk about how you plan to make a stand and kill them != acts dangerous to human life that violate state or federal law.

will LITERALLY believes it is one law for white people and another law for non-whites. Amazing! The FBI recently killed a brown guy who had a broom handle in a legal shoot but when 100 white guys with military style assault rifles take up positions to fire on federal agents they are totally not a threat. GTFO.

Strawmen, intellectual dishonesty, and loaded rhetoric in a single sentence. Well played.

ICWUDT. Yes, you made me look.

Statistically, they never were.

Gee, makes you wonder what happened in 2009 that led to such a spike. That's a real head scratcher...

Patriots.

I like how they justify it, by saying it if the gov. did kill them it would make for bad PR.

same logic the terrorists use fwiw

Feds should go all waco on this guy.

His family has OWNED the land for 100+ years. The fed has had interest in this land for years for whatever agenda. As a shady ploy to try to cripple the rancher they had environmentalists discover an "endangered tortoise" hence charging the rancher a "grazing tax". As far as I'm no biology major but I'm pretty sure tortoises are not in a cows diet. I don't blame him for refusing to pay this ridiculously bogus tax. It's just another example of how sick and twisted our government is. To show how intelligent our governments decision making is: They go in and coral the cattle, shoot them, then bury them with a large backhoe. Why not use the meat and feed the hundreds of thousands of starving people in our country? I don't blame the locals one bit for standing up. We have become puppets and the fact that OP finds this story amusing really makes me lose faith in our future.

@MeltingNe0 - If I use someone else's land, should I not have to compensate them for the use?

I lease land to hunters, should they just demand it be free of charge because they hate paying me money?

also why does his family owning land for x amount of years make any difference in him breaking the law?

First, they didn't "own" the land, they were just there since the late 1800's. If you want to award ownership to land based on who was there first, Native Americans would technically own all the land in the United States, which they don't. Also, Nevada basically ceded land rights to the federal government in it's constitution, so this guy can't even argue that he's playing by the rules of the state. Apparently all the other ranchers pay this nominal grazing fee ($1.35/head or something) and it's not a problem, but this guy argues for his own exceptionalism and RWNJs run to defend him.

Second, the "desert tortoise habitat" issue came about in 1993. Regardless of whether this is a legit complaint, it doesn't change the fact that the guy was grazing on public land for free. Perhaps this just gave them an onus to bring him to court, but in any case the government was well within it's rights to defend the public claim to the land (meaning it belongs to ALL OF US, not just Cliven Bundy).

Third, they didn't shoot the cattle and bury them with a backhoe. FFS get at least one fact straight before making an argument.

EDIT: For those saying that they had "no intention" of getting into a physical altercation, just remember that there was no hive mind here at work where all their thoughts were somehow coordinated. I imagine that 98% of these people had no intention of dying over this and were just trying to "take a stand" against the federal government. Unfortunately, it requires only one person to pull his trigger a little too hard, leading to a needless massacre with deaths on both sides. I get that we have the right to own guns in this country, but that doesn't mean that showing up with guns at a protest is somehow non-violent or comparable to showing up with picket signs. How to people not understand that the introduction of weapons into a situation immediately increases the chance for violence, legal or not?

Or, you know, they are morons saying sensationalistic **** to get attention. Which is exactly what open carriers do. That you buy into the clown show is loltastic, especially when the government didn't. What do you think the feds were thinking? Was it:

A: Those mother****ers are armed, crazy, they are going to kill one of us, and they are putting their families in mortal danger!!! Screw it, lets go have a beer.

or

B: Those mother****ers are out for attention, lets not give it to them.

So how does this end for the Feds? It can't end with the Feds backing down never to return again. It can't end with this guy openly flouting the law, the courts, threatening federal agents blah blah. So how does this end?

A bank lien?

This is the best option. That way the local sheriff will enforce the lien not the feds.

It will sure make the posse comitatus militia people so mad.

Wow, the "the people pointing loaded firearms at people are just playing" angle presents a refreshingly hilarious take on this event. Anyone want to speculate as to how Will would respond to the shooting of an unarmed black man who chose the wrong time to reach for his keys?

Actually, was Will on the record in that thread about the black guy in Georgia that got shot after he wrecked his car in the wrong neighborhood and pleaded with the wrong white lady for help?

Yeah it is pretty rich listening to a bunch of people POINTING GUNS AT FEDERAL AGENTS complain unironically about a tyrannical federal government. Like, I am legitimately and rightfully pissed that they are not in jail.

Can someone explain why the cattle were returned? Like, were the Feds unable to remove them without engaging or something?

Yea the people blocked the road and kept getting in the way of the vehicles.

I'm pretty sure they could invent some kind of device that hooked on the front of a truck that would gently push protestors aside in situations like these. The trucks could just ease forward and a person standing in the way would be scooped up and moved aside.