The guys I want to talk about are the militia nuts who came from other States to support him, and the political theories they are espousing in that support.
Now, these militia folk are real big on the Second Amendment. They've gotten some support from SCOTUS in their contention that an individual has a right to bear arms for his or her own purposes, which were outlined as protection, hunting or recreation. I've read that ruling, and a remarkable omission I've noticed is any mention of armed insurrection against the United States Government! I'd guess that the Supreme Court Justices are kinda opposed to a group of angry, armed citizens bursting into their courtroom disturbing the proceedings. I mean, a guy stood up - unarmed, I might add - and disrupted things a while back and got whacked with time served for contempt of court. Plus banned from the court grounds for a period of time, like 90 days or something. I'd bet adding guns to that mix might increase your chances of a longer jail time somewhere like Ft. Leavenworth in sunny Kansas, instead of a local jail in D.C.!!
In short, those milita nuts are, as usual, getting things mixed up.
Our founding documents include two very famous items - the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States of America. (I'm gonna give the Articles of Confederation a pass here, since we dumped that one as unworkable after fewer than a dozen years. So much for States' Rights.)
The militias like to expound on our Second Amendment rights, which they claim give us the right to defend ourselves against an unjust and oppressive government. They use our Revolution as proof that not only is that why the Founders guaranteed us the right to bear arms, but why success is possible, if not a forgone conclusion.
But, hold yer horses a moment, pardner! Her puttin' the cart waaaay before the horse here.
The Constitution came later. First, came the Declaration of Independance. It was a document that outlined the intent and goal of our revolution and our reasons for revolting against what we acknowledged as the rightful ruler of the America's colonies - the British Crown. It noted, among other things, our repeated attempts to correct what we saw as intolerable obstructions of our freedoms as British subjects, resulting in our resolve to simply renounce our allegiance to the Crown and set up our own government.
It was a declaration of our intent to revolt and overturn the rightful governing entity of The Colonies, the colonial governors appointed by the British Monarch, King George.
What modern Second Amendment supporters ignore is expressed in that famous cry by a man the British hung for his disloyalty to the Crown, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" What he got was death. They hung his ass about two minutes after he said that.
Which illustrates one thing about that Declaration we rarely note today - one may have the RIGHT to make revolution against an oppressive government - that right does not guarantee you freedom from the consequences of that revolutionary activity.
Another famous quote, this one by a survivor of the Revolution, Ben Franklin, is where he noted the wisdom of "hanging together, lest we hang separately!" Meaning that our Founders were VERY aware of the consequences of their actions!
Bringing us to Nevada.
The "militia" groups coming to the defense of a man who is in defiance of the law legally promulgated by the Congress and signed by a famous Republican President are very vocal about how they are so bravely defending our freedoms (while one of their members suggests using women and children as shields) but forget conveniently that such actions do have consequences.
Fortunately for them, in this case, the government agency acting (again, legally in this case) to enforce court orders the mooching rancher lost was wise enough to defuse the situation instead of trying to arrest people it had every right to move against.
The next time, it may not be so lenient.
Taking up arms against your government may be your right, but the Constitution you so vociferously seem to worship also gives your government the right to shoot your silly ass for doing it!
You are not patriots, you are insurrectionists, and insurrectionists are fighting a government I spent over forty years supporting, defending and working for. You do not have my respect, nor do you have my support.
You are defending a man who is a member of the top probably 2% of the wealthy of this country, and you are defending him for breaking the law and literally stealing from your government. His interests are not yours, nor does he give a shit about you. He will sit comfortably in his living room, watching your sorry asses get shot off on TV, while he and his lawyer disassociate themselves from you so they don't get legally involved with your ill-advised insurrection.
That is, if the government isn't so lenient on your undeserving butt the next time.
The more likely event will be that the BLM will wait till this blows over, and quietly round up his cattle the next time without the media attention and without prior notice, while waiting to jail his ass when he tries to stop them himself.
Thereby saving you from yourself.
Insurrection ain't pretty. Revolutions are expensive, and require that a very substantial percentage of the population support you. A majority of the American people do not support the modern milita movement, they are considered crazy gun nuts.
Most of us support the government blowing their silly butts away the next time. It's a shame they don't understand that Americans do NOT admire men who use women and children as human shields.
Instead, we despise them, and consider them to be the cowards they are. Believe me, there will never be a USS Bundy like there was a USS Lexington.