Cliven Bundy, insurrection, and the proper handling of the standoff in Nevada

Syrdon

The dicussion probably doesn't belong in the political media thread, so here's one to talk about Clive and company. Are they terrorists, are they wrong, did the government stand a chance, where should the government go from here on the subject of Clive and friends?

Some background:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-bundy-crisis-nevada
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/

Basically, some guy in Nevada grazes his cattle on federal land, for which there's a fee that should be paid. He skips out on that for 22 years and gets upset when his cattle are confiscated. Then he and a couple hundred of his closest friends internet strangers show up to take the cattle back from the Burea of Land Management. A stand off then ensues in which large quantities of crazy show up and law enforcement decides to let Bundy and friends leave with the cattle for now. The BLM says they will be pursuing this issue in the future, Bundy says a bunch of different things regarding states rights and to whom he should be paying fines (apparently he'll pay Nevada, but not the US government).

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

My recollection is that has yet to work anywhere in the US[1], and has lead to unpleasant results in other places that have tried it recently. If you crush them with lethal force, they turn into martyrs and you tick off everyone who thinks you had other options.

1: My recollection is pretty shitty actually. Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, probably some others. All the recent attempts have not gone well though.

There are two important things to remember:
First: there is no law enforcement agency in the US that is equipped to handle a couple hundred armed protestors.

Don't agencies and departments co-ordinate with each other for events like that?

Second: the government doesn't have control over the flow of information, which means if they do go in there will be any number of videos showing them in the worst possible light floating around.

They'll have to do something eventually. America can't have a bunch of armed terrorists go unpunished for their actions. That'll inspire others to do it since they saw the government isn't cracking down. They have to do this carefully, of course.

First off, they're almost certainly not terrorists. Criminals, sure. But out to overthrow the government, not to terrorize the populace. Insurrectionists about fits the bill.

As soon as you arrest one, the rest are going to band together because they're not stupid (crazy, but presumably they don't want to go to jail).

But you don't need to make a show out of them. You need to make a show out of their failure. Specifically, the government needs to be able to demonstrate that it can successfully confiscate Bundy's cattle and recover their fines from him in some fashion (presumably by selling the cattle). Wait a week or two, then go take the cattle (or as soon as they're no longer guarded) and ship them out of state on the same night. From there, sell them at the government's leisure. Rule of law prevails, you avoid any nasty discussions of how you're entitled to have/not have firearms at a protest, and these nut jobs don't get to win.

As far as agencies and departments:
The US federal government, in 2008, had 120,000 employees with arresting powers (according to wikipedia). I can't find numbers for the armed subset of the far right in the US, but I'd bet the number of folks who side with the Tea Party is a reasonable proxy. Unfortunately, I haven't found that either. I'd bet the second is substantially larger than the first though, and they're a group that has previously shown that they a) are willing to believe the worst about the government and b) listen to sources that provide that. Start arresting and I'd bet they start showing up armed to protests, at which point law enforcement loses the numbers game.

joshofalltrades

I was about to make a Gosh Darn Separate Thread but you've done the work for me, so thanks! If you need a strong expectorant/to induce vomiting, here is a video of the man himself giving an inspirational speech!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkWljeiAhYI

DivideByZero

My opinions on the standoff are essentially:

The federal officers did the right thing in retreating. Even though they had every legal right to the actions they were taking, they were outnumbered, outgunned, and facing zealous opposition (I'm loathe to even call them "protesters" as their presence was not primarily to voice opposition to the government but to directly impede the lawful enforcement of a court order through force of arms).

On top of that the officers would not have even been able to defend themselves if attacked because these fucktards were literally using women and children as human shields.

There were enough cameras on the scene, I say charge every single one of them with obstruction of justice, then go back in with more agents and an armed escort (national guard if necessary). Seize all the cattle and put this guy in jail for defying decades worth of court orders.

Most importantly, do not engage this lunatic on an even level. You cannot have an honest debate with someone who denies the very existence of the federal government. These sovereign citizens are looney toons to the last man. Even the right-wing media isn't willing to back them up completely.

Preacher

Ehh I wouldn't say the officers were outgunned, out numbered maybe, but the pictures of the derp squad showed they were using retarded tactics with walmart tactical gear.

It was the smart move to withdraw temporarily, let the morons find out this guy is a mormon so that means no beer and then they'll go back to their shift at the Idaho walmart where they can be arrested for aiding a felon and we can all sleep tighter at night that dangerous people with weapons are behind bars.

joshofalltrades

When the courts say, "Federalism is a thing" and the guys' response is, "Nope," I'm pretty much fine with not listening to any other part of his argument. A lot of people wanted there to be blood over this but I would be happier personally if he did a fair stint in prison.

Preacher

Nevada's own constitution cedes power to the federal government. So when he claims he recognizes neveda but not the US gov it just proves he's a damned idiot.

Feral

I agree that the federal government's tactical retreat was the right decision. We really don't need to have another Waco over some cows and a patch of desert.

But the dude is clearly in the wrong. and the matter still need to be dealt with swiftly before every idiot with a fetish for tricorn hats and/or paintball BDUs decides that you can just brandish your way out of the rule of law.

joshofalltrades

And we especially need to make it clear that using women as human shields is a bullshit tactic that will make things worse for you.

SyphonBlue

Harry Reid says it's not over

We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over.

Nevada State Assemblywoman says "nuh uh fuck ur laws lol"

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said she spent much of the past week with the Bundy family and helped feed some of the calves that were returned over the weekend.

"It's going to take a lot to revive the calves that were nearly dead when they were returned to the Bundy Ranch because they had been separated from their mothers during the roundup, and a few most likely won't make it," said Fiore, a Republican from Las Vegas. "It's time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada."

Preacher

I like how she's setting up the bundy's to try and claim the government killed their cattle. God damn grifters on the right really know how to get their grift on.

joshofalltrades

You know, I'm honestly surprised this is happening in Nevada and not Texas or Arizona. Out here he's already been proclaimed and christened the messiah of the new uncivil disobedience movement.

nexuscrawler

oinstead of a showdown they should just show up to his house at 4 am and hold him in contempt of court for failing to follow a court order.

PantsB

Obstruction of justice?

You charge all of them with 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

and let them plea down to a lesser charge

Fuck Bundy. He's a traitor and a criminal

Dark_Side

I wonder if they can put a lien on the cattle, that should at least either force him to pay the fines, or make it extremely hard to sell the cattle. Hit him in his wallet and me thinks this will get solved quick.

I still want to see that asshole pointing the gun through the concrete guard rails get some jail time though. This isn't a game, and I wonder if those morons have any idea how close they were to an actual gunfight breaking out.

PantsB

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

Syrdon

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore wrote:

It's time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada.

My thought is that if Nevada wants to recover the land (which, in fairness, is something like 86% of the state) from the federal government via some sort of fairly priced purchase, I'm all for that. I'm not sure where they're going to get the money from, but that does seem reasonable. Something like claiming eminent domain or that the US should just give the land to Nevada does seem just a bit crazy though.

PantsB

Return of land also implies it was at one time owned by Nevada

Preacher

Nevada isn't going to buy that land, no one wanted it, its why the feds have it. And I believe Nevada makes money off the feds having the land. Its just more bullshit from the party of states having rights when its convenient for their arguments.

And its not like if it was state land or federal land it would change the fact Bundy has not paid for using that land for 20 years while he makes a profit with his cows.

Henroid

Feral wrote: »

I agree that the federal government's tactical retreat was the right decision. We really don't need to have another Waco over some cows and a patch of desert.

But the dude is clearly in the wrong. and the matter still need to be dealt with swiftly before every idiot with a fetish for tricorn hats and/or paintball BDUs decides that you can just brandish your way out of the rule of law.

Question is, when is Federal force the proper thing to use?

Mill

As I said in the other thread, if they are taking this shithead back to court. If he has to be there in person, then just arrest his ass before he can leave. Deprives the fucker of being surrounding by an armed gang.

I'm wondering if we'll be seeing a fellow up story in the next week or two, where a bunch of the shitheads that showed up with guns get arrested and charged for brandishing weapons, obstruction justice and whatever else can be thrown their.

I won't lose any sleep if any of the fuckers get shot and killed, but most of these fuckers strike me as idiots, so there are cleaner ways of rounding them out, that will result in far less collateral damage. Also going with the cleaner route, gives the shithead politicians plenty of time to destroy their careers by supporting shits like Bundy and driving the sane dumbasses, that would normally vote for them away.

joshofalltrades

Dude just wants to pay nothing at all, he's basically concern trolling the Federal government. He wouldn't be any happier if that money was going to the charity of his choice or straight to the NRA or whatever.

Syrdon

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

Captain Marcus

Preacher wrote: »

the pictures of the derp squad showed they were using retarded tactics with walmart tactical gear

Is there an analysis somewhere of how they were being idiots?

Preacher

They weren't protesters. This wasn't occupy wall street who actually got a taste of a jack booted heel a time or two. These were dangerous David Koresh types who planned to use women as human shields.

The very least they should get is arrested. We can't have citizens taking up arms against the government, it negates the government.

PantsB

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

I don't agree that the most important issue regarding a couple dozen people threatening federal law enforcement with rifles, impeding them in the course of their duties, blocking a highway and explicitly stating this was a part of an armed rebellion against the US government is whether or not cattle grazing laws are enforced.

I mean in order to avoid confrontation they had to not enforce those laws so that's not really relevant anyway. But the important thing about the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't whiskey tax collection.

DivideByZero

You're talking about people who will rail on about the absolute inviolability of land ownership and how shooting trespassers is a god-given right, and if your neighbor lets his livestock graze on your land the proper response is to go to war, but if the federal government owns some land next to yours, it's totes legit to let your cattle loose on it, court orders be damned.

Sorry bro, it doesn't matter a wet shit if you believe the government doesn't own the land. Believe it as hard as you want, that doesn't make it true.

Syrdon

.

PantsB wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

I don't agree that the most important issue regarding a couple dozen people threatening federal law enforcement with rifles, impeding them in the course of their duties, blocking a highway and explicitly stating this was a part of an armed rebellion against the US government is whether or not cattle grazing laws are enforced.

I mean in order to avoid confrontation they had to not enforce those laws so that's not really relevant anyway. But the important thing about the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't whiskey tax collection.

Got a plan for a new Whiskey Rebellion crushing that doesn't involve several hundred innocent people getting shot? Think it through, what is the rational (in the economic, rational actor sense) response from these folks when you start arresting them? Walk through the process and if you can come up with a plan to arrest and prosecute them I'm all ears. Everything else is wishful thinking, actions that will do more harm than good or limiting the enforcement to the original dispute.

joshofalltrades

You have to keep in mind that these people were putting women in the front to be shot first.

Fuck them, but fuck them in a way that won't let their cowardly tactics hurt those people more than necessary.

Khavall

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

I'm sorry, I don't think any story that opens with "Men take up arms against the US Government and in return have to pay the fines that they had to pay anyways with no other legal repercussions" is actually going to make them look crazy to the people who constantly spout about how they need their guns to protect from the tyranny of the United States of America.

Preacher

People get arrested for weapons charges all the time without starting a second civil war Syrdon. These people brandished weapons with intent to shoot at federal officers. That you suggest simply because they are armed we should do nothing to them is fucking madness.

"Well we were going to enforce the laws but then a bunch of people had guns and nope can't enforce laws against people with guns thats not fair to their persection complex."

They broke the fucking law, they should go to jail so the next time an idiot gets it into his head to use his weapon as some kind of citizens militia he thinks "nope shouldn't do that last guy got five years in the federal pen."

PantsB

Syrdon wrote: »

Got a plan for a new Whiskey Rebellion crushing that doesn't involve several hundred innocent people getting shot? Think it through, what is the rational (in the economic, rational actor sense) response from these folks when you start arresting them? Walk through the process and if you can come up with a plan to arrest and prosecute them I'm all ears. Everything else is wishful thinking, actions that will do more harm than good or limiting the enforcement to the original dispute.

Innocent?

If you are in a state of open armed rebellion, you aren't innocent. "If you mess with the bull" seems especially appropriate in this case

Preacher

It does speak for how retarded we have gotten in the US when in the Bush admin speaking against the government was treason. But taking up arms against the government is now a citizens protest? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?

PantsB

joshofalltrades wrote: »

You have to keep in mind that these people were putting women in the front to be shot first.

Fuck them, but fuck them in a way that won't let their cowardly tactics hurt those people more than necessary.

Because the women can't be idiots too right?

The gender/sex of the people in rebellion doesn't really change things too much for me

Syrdon

Khavall wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

I'm sorry, I don't think any story that opens with "Men take up arms against the US Government and in return have to pay the fines that they had to pay anyways with no other legal repercussions" is actually going to make them look crazy to the people who constantly spout about how they need their guns to protect from the tyranny of the United States of America.

So long as they don't end up in the streets again, I don't care. I'd rather take the chance that some future issue makes them show up than the certainty that they do as soon as you announce you're arresting them.

You're also forgetting that there's a fair number of folks who think a) these people are crazy and b) they need their guns to prevent tyranny. The distinct issue being that even gun rights fanatics can recognize that this guy broke a long standing law and has no legal leg to stand on. But those people will absolutely join his side if people who didn't actually hurt anyone start getting arrested. Better to leave them an irritating non-party to the discussion than take an action that causes them to come in on the other side.

PantsB

By the way the process is "You are under arrest. Put down your guns, or they will be put down for you."

PantsB

There is no other side. Its not a negotiation.

Syrdon

PantsB wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

Got a plan for a new Whiskey Rebellion crushing that doesn't involve several hundred innocent people getting shot? Think it through, what is the rational (in the economic, rational actor sense) response from these folks when you start arresting them? Walk through the process and if you can come up with a plan to arrest and prosecute them I'm all ears. Everything else is wishful thinking, actions that will do more harm than good or limiting the enforcement to the original dispute.

Innocent?

If you are in a state of open armed rebellion, you aren't innocent. "If you mess with the bull" seems especially appropriate in this case

The Washington Post wrote:

April 1, 2014: Bundy's 14 children and 52 grandchildren are all bunkered down at his house waiting for the BLM to arrive.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

You sure that all 66 of those people are in open armed rebellion? That's just Bundy too, I have no doubt this gets worse when you start to include the other couple hundred folks families.

PantsB wrote: »

By the way the process is "You are under arrest. Put down your guns, or they will be put down for you."

What do you expect the response to be of the first person from this who is arrested?
Assuming that they are arrested without making the evening news, how many folks do you think can be arrested before news of the arrests makes its way onto whatever forums/discussion boards/phone lists these people use?
Once that happens, what do you expect them to do?

Syrdon

double post

PantsB

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

Got a plan for a new Whiskey Rebellion crushing that doesn't involve several hundred innocent people getting shot? Think it through, what is the rational (in the economic, rational actor sense) response from these folks when you start arresting them? Walk through the process and if you can come up with a plan to arrest and prosecute them I'm all ears. Everything else is wishful thinking, actions that will do more harm than good or limiting the enforcement to the original dispute.

Innocent?

If you are in a state of open armed rebellion, you aren't innocent. "If you mess with the bull" seems especially appropriate in this case

The Washington Post wrote:

Bundy's 14 children and 52 grandchildren are all bunkered down at his house waiting for the BLM to arrive.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

You sure that all 66 of those people are in open armed rebellion? That's just Bundy too, I have no doubt this gets worse when you start to include the other couple hundred folks families.

You're right we should encourage the use of human shields AND armed rebellion.

The cattle aren't grazing adjacent to their house. They are on Federal land. A group of people armed with guns followed them for miles and threatened them including Bundy's adult offspring. Those people should be arrested. If they threaten resistance they should still be arrested. If they fire at law enforcement they should be subdued with whatever means are necessary. Having kids and guns doesn't make you above the law.

nexuscrawler

Mill wrote: »

As I said in the other thread, if they are taking this shithead back to court. If he has to be there in person, then just arrest his ass before he can leave. Deprives the fucker of being surrounding by an armed gang.

I'm wondering if we'll be seeing a fellow up story in the next week or two, where a bunch of the shitheads that showed up with guns get arrested and charged for brandishing weapons, obstruction justice and whatever else can be thrown their.

I won't lose any sleep if any of the fuckers get shot and killed, but most of these fuckers strike me as idiots, so there are cleaner ways of rounding them out, that will result in far less collateral damage. Also going with the cleaner route, gives the shithead politicians plenty of time to destroy their careers by supporting shits like Bundy and driving the sane dumbasses, that would normally vote for them away.

they could legally get the judge to issue a bench warrant for contempt of court and lock him up until he complies with the previous court order to pay his fees. He is in direct admitted violation of a court order they don't even need to charge him with a crime.

Khavall

Syrdon wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Syrdon wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Honestly, if people are dumb enough to take up arms against the United States government I'm fine with them getting killed.

Hell if I pulled a gun at a cop and refused to stand down just to try and get away with a crime I'm getting my ass put down. When a group of people does it as a direct attack against the government they don't deserve extra deference.

What they deserve and what can be reasonably managed are two very different things. The question shouldn't be 'are they getting what's coming to them', it should be 'is the government successfully enforcing it's rules regarding cattle'. So long as the government gets paid the appropriate fines, and the money at least indirectly comes from Bundy, rule of law has been enforced and the nut jobs with guns only managed to slow it down a bit. Arresting all of them will change the story from 'one crazy cattle rancher who doesn't want to pay fines and his crazy friends' to 'the US federal government arresting a bunch of protestors who never hurt anyone'. It won't matter what laws they broke. All anyone will hear is several hundred arrests for protesting. One of these paths leads to mass protests, most of them armed. The other leads to this blowing over within a few months, with the final story being 'a crazy rancher and his crazy friends couldn't stop the US government from collecting fines'.

I'm sorry, I don't think any story that opens with "Men take up arms against the US Government and in return have to pay the fines that they had to pay anyways with no other legal repercussions" is actually going to make them look crazy to the people who constantly spout about how they need their guns to protect from the tyranny of the United States of America.

So long as they don't end up in the streets again, I don't care. I'd rather take the chance that some future issue makes them show up than the certainty that they do as soon as you announce you're arresting them.

You're also forgetting that there's a fair number of folks who think a) these people are crazy and b) they need their guns to prevent tyranny. The distinct issue being that even gun rights fanatics can recognize that this guy broke a long standing law and has no legal leg to stand on. But those people will absolutely join his side if people who didn't actually hurt anyone start getting arrested. Better to leave them an irritating non-party to the discussion than take an action that causes them to come in on the other side.

So you're also in favour of Drunk driving being 100% legal if the driver doesn't end up hitting anyone? After all, they didn't actually hurt anyone, right? No reason to arrest them.


These people pointed guns at federal officials and threatened to use them.

You do not get to walk away from that just because you're extra crazy and have people supporting you.