This does not have much to do with the 2nd in my mind. The guns are a tool that the militias were misusing, but it could have been anything from a pitchfork to a pipe-bomb to their own kids as human shields.
As far as I'm concerned, the militia clowns are actively supporting an ongoing crime. You don't have to 'fear' a kid in order to spank his ass, ...
Misusing how? Were the federal forces misusing their guns? What's the difference?
What crime? Are they not authorized to open carry? You mean the "crime" of the rancher not paying the
fees the BLM says he owes? What does that have to do with the militia guys?
...
You'd have to be in a pretty deep state of denial to believe that brandishing a weapon and pointing it at someone was not intimidation. And the intimidation was to protect Cliven Bundy who is in trouble because has stolen resources from the rightful owner (that would be me as a tax paying citizen of the U.S.) and is evading justice for his actions. It is pretty unusual to have the right to intimidate someone with a visible firearm as well it should be. Doing so in the commission of a crime is a big deal.
Actually, it looks a bit to me as though the Feds were setting up the metro cops to be mowed down, and the metro cops sensed this and resent it. I don't see very many 'good guys' in this whole thing, but not especially due to the fact that the Feds were armed in attempting to perform the completely legitimate activity that they were involved in (rounding up trespassing cattle and selling them to pay bills owed.) It seems perfectly legitimate and common sense for them to be armed to me.
At the end of the day, I would say that anyone who lent any sort of support to Bundy is both demonstrably irresponsible and guilty of at the very least assisting in a crime. If they were armed in doing so, they are in that much more trouble. Certainly anyone there should be stripped of any right to touch a gun from here forward, and if they are caught doing so they should be locked up for the protection of U.S. citizens.