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.

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? Most likely not.

Are pot heads or crack addicts heroes for not obeying drug laws?

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.

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

Quite rightly. There is a place for civil disobedience, but grazing fees are an acceptable part of rancher culture (the reason why even friggin' Glenn Beck ditched this guy), even if it is the feds you're paying money to. The question of federal ownership is largely peripheral to this story, which is more about a guy who thinks he can get something for nothing, what the Right would normally call a moocher.

The image i posted was a joke which you might not get (or might, if the rumors about Russia getting America's old sitcoms on TV are true), based on a TV character with the last name of Bundy.

As for the case in question, the BLM Officers have backed off their efforts to seize his cattle for the moment, but the government's not just going to let this guy get his way. There's all sorts of stuff they could do, though, like place a tax lien against his cattle making any proceeds from sale of the cattle go straight into the government's coffers (taking away the money the cattle could earn without having to physically take the cattle).

It would be better for all involved if they solved this peacefully, especially for the wives of the militiamen, as the militiamen apparently wanted to use them as meat shields?

Patriotism at work, folks.

Quite rightly. There is a place for civil disobedience, but grazing fees are an acceptable part of rancher culture (the reason why even friggin' Glenn Beck ditched this guy), even if it is the feds you're paying money to. The question of federal ownership is largely peripheral to this story, which is more about a guy who thinks he can get something for nothing, what the Right would normally call a moocher.

I edit my comments too much :(

Hope I didn't add anything to make you turn against me. Wouldn't want to trick you.

Couldn't the bolded be said of any political injustice  that entails civil disobedience? Was racism not a culture in the Jim Crow south? What about woman and religous opression, aren't they acceptable parts of their respective cultures? It seems like a silly argument to justify whether or not something is worthy of civil disobedience by if it is unacceptable culturally, since you know civil disobedience tends to be countered against popularly held cultural (and consequently political) beliefs. That is of course, assuming a democratic society in which the law somewhat represents the views of the population. It's this principle which leads to the reason for why all attempts at liberal govenrnments limit the political process and power that is attainable and protect the rights of individiduals and minorities against majorities.