I'm thinking about this and why MaR still has heartburn with the BLM, even though he agrees that Bundy is a deadbeat and the malicia folks aren't necessarily doing the right thing. Ardy is hunting the state ownership thing.

So it seems to boil down to this: MaR believes the BLM shouldn't have brought guns to a law enforcement action and the Federal government shouldn't own the land.

I can't think of any basis in the law, or logic, that supports these two beliefs.

Is there any?

Why isn't MaR more upset that civilians brought weapons to a legitimate enforcement proceeding occurring on public land and threatened officers of the law?

Why doesn't MaR care about the fiscal implications of the whole event? Hmm

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller