There comes a point where the "public opinion" spread by the MSM reaches a level so disproportionate with the true public opinion that people start to speak out in opposition. The recent gun control attempt showed that to be true... I've never seen so many random people assert their views in public as I witnessed last summer.
The network of these militias is a powerful network of friends, families, and communities. They are willing to die for each other and for you. The unheard voice of the public is swollen with emotion and just because it isn't heard doesn't discount the strength or will of it...
If the plan is to turn the people against those patriots, then it's not going to work. People who disagree with the presence of a militia at the Bundy ranch are much less likely to take any action or network their desire to disband them. However, on the other hand; those in support of the presence of the militia at the Bundy ranch are exponentially more likely to spread their views and opinions. The supporters care about the cause much more deeply than exists a desire in the general public to disband them. It's a losing proposition for those who would vilify the militia and the Bundy family.
You are sort of right, but mostly wrong (IMHO).
Most random people in my area have a sense of distrust of the means and motives of the central government in some areas. It is probably strong enough for the Feds to consider it a potential problem which needs to be worked on. As I've said, the Occupy stuff was very likely a wakeup call, and it marks a noteworthy point when domestic surveillance efforts were really ramped up. I'd also note that when a complete surveillance system is in place, poking the hornets nest and getting people communicating about things serves a useful purpose if one is formulating individualized high precision dossiers (which, beyond question, the NSA and other agencies are doing.) It also provides the opportunity to field test 'fusion centers' and other mechanisms which could be called upon to deal with certain 'problems.'
You are almost certainly wrong about the level of action and support that most people will have for which groups. A vast majority of thinking people are not going to see a bunch of anarchists with guns imposing their will by force as preferable to much but the most grotesque of 'government overreach.' This because it isn't. The direction that most people will go will be to welcome the otherwise unwelcome government forces to protect them against psychos who would use their own wives and children as human shields.
Also, I'm not arguing about taxes here but there is a point that needs to be considered... He does not owe taxes, he owes "fees" and people would be wise to understand the difference. A fee is not a tax...
These fees were assessed to serve a purpose. The BLM was to use the proceeds of these fees to assist the ranchers with the maintenance of the land. When the BLM stopped using the fees for the purpose of which they were assessed, the fees were no longer necessary. Bundy has elected not to voluntarily pay these fees since they are no longer legitimate. That would be like paying for an "uninsured motorist fee" without using the funding to pay for damages caused by hit and run or uninsured motorists...
fee
fē/Submit
noun
1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.
The BLM fees were similar to homeowners association fees in that they are paid as an exchange of money for services that benefit those who pay the fees. (maintenance of the land in this case.)
Further on a tangent; when the government assesses a tax, does that mean the amount is always owed? Do you trust in the infallibility of the government to assess taxes properly and fairly? When the courts refuse to hear cases of tax protest and treat protest in a manner consistent with "heresy" are you sure you can prevent that system from abuse?
I consider the BLM's mandate to be management of ALL of the resource under their charge in a systematic way. That is, if they use some of the fees and other resources at their disposal to protect certain segments of their holdings with an eye toward preserving some ecological artifacts, that seems perfectly appropriate to me.
You can go ahead a vilify the BLM, but I know some people who work for the government personally. As I say, I live near land which they manage and deal with them from time to time. Believe it or not, they don't fly to Brussles and have secret meetings with the one-world Illuminati. They are typical people doing their jobs, and, paradoxically, more likely to be on the anti-government side of most arguments.
As I've said before, the percentage of land which the Feds own in most Western states is kind of high. This is not some evil plot to take over the world. What it is is an artifact of how our nation was built. Someone above said it isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. I agree, but mainly because most of them didn't think about the areas outside of the East at all. Those few who did have some vision (like Jefferson) were active in planning and dreaming much later in their careers and long after the founding documents were assembled.
It is possible to get the Feds off our backs without resorting to an armed conflict, and the dopers are proving this right now. There is a lot of money to be made on the 'war on drugs' and fierce resistance from the Feds against letting that war go. But the states are winning this battle. It would be similarly possible to win control of a reasonable balance of Federal land in the Western states. It would take something more than sitting around polishing one's guns and stewing about things though.