No not at all. I think Mr. Bundy had all the chances in the world to be compliant (with peaceful resolution) and choose otherwise. No man is above the law, whether you agree with the law or not. I don't want anarchy, I do think about resource usage past my lifetime and how a poor decision today can cause devastation in the future long after I am gone.
To review:
Bundy and his fellow ranchers were paying grazing fees
BLM steps in a to raise grazing fees, citing the ranchers' need to pay for damages to the desert tortoise habitat
Grazing fees are raised to a price point far beyond market rate (i.e., although grazing is "allowed", the fees intentionally set so high that they are economically unfeasible. This is the very epitome of a
de facto ban)
Cattlemen can no longer afford to ranch the land they've ranched for generations, many end up losing multi-generation family ranches
Bundy, trying to fight back, goes to court. Court sides with BLM. Twice. Precedent? There is no precedent. BLM authority is so far-reaching and unfettered that their precedent is "Because we said so". (Don't believe me? Look it up.)
BLM sends in armed military personnel in assault vehicles, sporting riot shields and full combat gear
To summarize..
Ranchers' families have grazed land for generations. Ranchers are paying grazing fees.
Government raises grazing fees to the a point that ranchers can no longer afford to ranch the land their family has grazed for generations.
Multiple ranchers go out of business, but tries to have his day in court.
Court laughs in his face multiple times.
Soldiers show up in full battle gear to take his possessions.
And you
still think the onus to settle amicably rests on Cliven Bundy's shoulders... ?
Using that logic it's a victim's fault for getting robbed, and it is their responsibility to play nice when the robber tells them they will be back for more. Sorry, but no. At some point enough is enough. Personally I think the man has been a bastion of patience. Far more than I or a lot of the people I know would have been.
And, for the record. We are not talking about "the law". There is no law on any book which specifically makes what Mr. Bundy is doing illegal. What we are talking about is "the regulation". Specifically a BLM regulation developed on an arbitrary basis by personnel with questionable motives, emplaced under questionable circumstances, and enforced on a seemingly arbitrary basis. We talk about this all the time, only instead of "ranchers" and "BLM" we use the terms "gun owners" and "ATF". Takes on a whole new dimension now, doesn't it?
I don't get it. I really don't. We rail against tyranny and government overreach on this very forum on a daily basis. Yet for some reason people want to throw this man under the bus for standing up against that very thing. Have we really sunk to the point where we not only turn a blind eye to the tyranny we despise, but also willingly denounce others standing up to it?
Brad