There is no scenario where they 'take' from the Federal Government.  Their only option is going a legal, peaceful route, where the land rights are transferred to the State. Otherwise, they'll simply get 'dealt' with.

 they take the land by force or legal means it does not matter. I never stated how they would, but I meant legally. that is why they had a multi state meeting about it, to plan how to legally take the land back. But failing that, I would be fine with them defending (like Bundy did) or retaking their land by force. States still have rights, and I would love for state vs feds rights to come to a head and for the feds to back down (as they should)

Lots of paranoid people in America with easy access to guns is a recipe for disaster. High number of gun related crimes including armed robberies, murders, etc occur in the US every year.

More guns means less gun violence because logic. It's kind of how like having more money means you're actually poorer. That makes sense right?

So how do we spin the part where they wanted to use the women as meat shields, eh? I want to see that one.

I haven't read that one. But for me, I dont care about the messenger,  I care about the mesasge. The message is for the feds to let states take control. Doesn't matter to me if I did or did not like Bundy, the message is right. Why is it that people have to attack the messengar and not the message? Why should the feds control these lands? That is what should be being asked. Bundy stated why the state should have them, why cant the feds put their reasoning out there? If it was because of the turtles, why was the land sold for houses? why are the turtles now being killed by the government. More importantly, why is it that the news only story about this is that he is racisit? and that he wants to use women as meat sheilds? Why are we disussing that instead of who should control the land, feds or state? I guess the media has done its "job" on this one.

So if he has no contract, why is he making use of government land?

Yeah, that'll work out really well for them, I'm sure.  Part of me would absolutely LOVE to see them try.  The part who loves seeing Darwin Awards handed out to people who die for being idiots, that is.

Because it's important to discuss how dangerously insane the militia movement is?

This guy had 20 years of chances in court to prove that he had something going for him. You yourself mentioned a movement by western states to resolve this issue. The government was only trying to collect its due after twenty years of nonpayment.

Only mistake they made was in their rough handling of Bundy's son. That shouldn't have happened (and if it hadn't, the guy's cattle would have been taken without a fuss, largely).

This story got me thinking. How far can we go with our right to protest and defend ourselves with arms.

Can the average guy refuse to pay his taxes because he doesn't believe he's been taxed fairly? When the feds come to audit, do you think the media would treat him like a hero when he pulls a rifle on them?

Or how about stop and frisk laws in New York? Barring New York's tight gun restrictions. Could a person refuse to comply and use their gun as a valid defense against he NYPD's intrusion? Most likely not.

Are pot heads or crack addicts heroes for not obeying drug laws? If they were arme, what then?

I'm trying to understand why Bundy is so special or how he became a hero for not doing what he was legally obligated to do. And why being armed when breaking the law and actively threatening our government makes him a conservative hero.