With the recent clash between the BLM and a Nevada rancher we can see how the right to bear arms can be used to protect against a big government intrusion. I was wondering what vgcharters thought of the recent event, and how the right to own guns helped protect this man, his family, and his belongings from the long arm of the government. I dont think this would have ended peacfully if the internet did not exist and it wasn't being talked about so much on the interent (since the mainstream media didnt cover it that much, at least from what I saw) so that played a role as well. Would of been harder for big government to spin this in a good fashion with events unfolding in realtime for everyone to see. So I am glad for the internet too.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

I think it's more about the fuss that was made than the guns that were shown at the party.
The Feds don't want a viral video of them smashing American citizens.

It would've ended like Waco if the internet didn't exist. I still don't believe Bundy (and his family) are safe from the Federal Government though. But it is still pretty fascinating nevertheless. It should act as an example that things can be done and that the people are not powerless against the rule of an overbloated leech.

Yep. If anything, their guns would have been the excuse to turn it into another Waco if not for the cameras. It's just like whipping out a flip phone on a cop.

The guns could have turned it into something worse. The exposure is what saved the day.

However, I'm not sure I understand this. He's using land he doesn't own in order to make money but refuses to pay anything? While others do pay? I see no reason why I should be on this guy's side.

If there were no guns, the protesters would've been herded (like the cattle) to "1st amendment zones" and likely nothing would've happened.

The guns and the internet made a great combination. The more power the people have the better.

They shouldnt be on this guys side he broke the law, and after several warnings over many years to keep his livestock fenced in and off goverment grazing land he  refused to pay the equivalent of a parking ticket, and when the govt started rounding up his cattle for tresspassing he called his millitia buddies, and they created such a danger to the public cause of the risk of a shootout that officials for public safety reason had to back off its sad really.

Apparently the land was used as a common resource for ranchers for generations, then the federal government started to charge the ranchers for their usage (to protect certain animal and plant species), and Bundy refused to pay for something that his family had been using for generations. Over the years the bill racked up to approximately a million dollars. In western states there is a problem with regards to federal government ownership (70% + of the states) vs. private and state ownership of land. So it's pretty much a grey issue. The theft of Bundy's cattle, however, is pretty black-and-white. 

From ABC's article:

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

"We love America and we love each other," Carol Bundy said. "Together, we're standing up. This is not about cows; it's about our federal government. They have unlimited power right now, and we're tired of it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/11/cliven-bundy-blm-waco_n_5134340.html