Here's a few things to know to understand what happened (and most of this was missing from the left-wing news):
- They're not terrorists, which attack civilians and try to terrorize to alter public opinion. They aren't attacking anyone, or even scaring them, even if they have arms. They're squatting. Calling them terrorists might rile up the democratic base and get dollars and votes, but it only inflames the informed. I think taking over abandoned federal building under arms isn't a good way to display your displeasure at something -- so I'm not on these guys "side". But claim they're terrorists and kill them, and I'm more on their side than the other one. We don't need more Janet Reno's and Waco's.
- Remember context (hypocrisy): (1) this is after we had the President calling out to the brave soles protesting in Ferguson (rioting and burning down neighborhoods because a violent felon thug got shot for thugging) (2) this is after Occupy was sensationalized by the Press/President for public defecation and proving they understand absolutely nothing about the causes of the Financial Crisis, nor the proper roles of government. Now, suddenly, this less violent protest of a far more valid grievance is worth killing pissed off ranchers for? It's more proof that if you keep sensationalizing protests (and protestors ends justifying the means), then you'll get more of them. (Even those that are opposed to you). You've taught them that stunts for media attention are a way to enact change, so both sides will use it.
From their view, I'm sure they think, "whenever the left gets pissed they do violent things over wrong causes, and get positive media attention. We'll be more civil, and have a more just cause, and see what happens... and of course having boom sticks gets the medias attention, and makes it harder to just throw us out." The left loves to come in heavy handed on right wing protests, so by nature, the right wingers tend to have to raise the stakes if they do.
I still think both sides are wrong. And bringing guns was a stupid escalation, it increases the odds that there will be a violent over-reaction by an overzealous government, over an abandoned outpost that no one gives a shit about... unless you're threatening the collective power/authority of fascists.
Yet, we notice a trend. These events like Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Oregon, always peak with Democrat (authoritarian) administrations. Why is that?
The less ability to listen to the other side, and more willingness to talk over them (and misrepresent them), the more abuse of power by the administration, then the more demonstrable these organizations get. And of course, the media is doing a lot to misrepresent their cause or intent, but still give them attention, and how do you think that will work out?
If you want to end the Bundy/Oregon stand-off? Ignore them. I say the same thing about the tree huggers chaining themselves to a tree, or Occupy-morons or Only-Black-Lives-Matter racists. If you keep paying attention to them as noble warriors for a cause, you'll get more polarization and noble warriors mimicking their bad-choices for attention.
So even if you believe they have valid causes, the ends doesn't justify the means. And for that to matter, you have to lead by example, and hold your side to the same standard as you'd hold the other. Anyone that complaining about Bundy/Oregon, but wasn't equally vocal about Occupy/BLM/Furgeson, proves that they're hypocrites. Just like anyone that excuses Bundy/Oregon but has a problem with Occupy/BLM/Furgeson is as well. You either have a problem with the means, or you only selectively have a problem with it (and are a hypocrite). But the more you sympathize with bad behavior, and reward it, the more bad behavior you'll get.
One person as killed. Not a justifiable shooting. (Of course, it was the Obama administration). Then there was a lawsuit, and the Bundy's won -- the government was wrong all along.