The Bundy ranch thing bothers me.
If you know even a little about ranching, cattle, free-grazing, range-wars, etc, you know that having a lot of land to graze on is essential for having a large herd and having a large herd is essential for having a functioning ranch.
If you know a little about the difference between grass fed beef and corn fed beef, you know you'd rather be eating the grass fed stuff. Probably better for you in terms of how your metabolism treats it (different kinds of fats I guess).
So if you know that stuff, you know that this is ostensibly a rancher that's doing it the old fashioned way, doing it the way that produces better, happier, healthier cows that aren't being forced to wade through their own muck, aren't being force fed corn, etc.
So you kind of feel like if his family has been free-grazing their cattle on that land since before the BLM, they should get to continue doing that. Morally speaking, it's clear that this guy's family business is dependent on this land. You know that when you take away access to the land, ranches go under (or worse, you get a range war). We don't like that. We want to take care of our ranchers (right?).
But then you find out that the Federal government owns the land this dude is grazing on and has ever since they've been grazing on it. They get to decide what to do with their land. They decided to do something stupid with it. That's their right, that's what ownership means (though I wish that double-edged sword cut both ways a little better).
Then again, you find out that there are Senators that have power with the BLM and have relatives that have an interest in land like this so they can sell it to Chinese corporations....
...and then you see a really reasonable video like this...
sorry Charlie, I think militia action was justified. Militia just became a court of appeals IMHO.
...course if you're wrong or the government thinks nobody is going to care if they shoot you, you lose our life when you lose the appeal.