So a few years ago, a couple of ranchers out west burned 139 acres of federal land—according to witnesses a tactic to cover up the poaching of several deer. The court gave them less than the federal minimum but the appeals court over-rode and stuck them with five years.
Now the sons and brothers of Cliven Bundy (the rancher/welfare queen/racist who grazed his herd on federal land and refused to pay for it) have joined some militia group in protesting the conviction by seizing a national wildlife center, demanding the land be returned to the public (as quoted at the link, the local public isn’t interested). Oh, no, it’s turned over to ranchers and loggers—in short more welfare (I’m pretty sure that if anyone wanted to pay more to develop it, they wouldn’t be happy about letting go to someone else). And the county sheriff must declare a “sanctuary” for the Hammonds (the arsonists). And while the protesters like, totally peaceful, they’re ready to fight and kill if the government tries to remove them.
Nevertheless, they’re still peaceful protesters according to some media accounts. One CNN analyst, Art Roderick, said they weren’t destroying anything or causing trouble like Muslim or Black Lives Matter protesters so there was no reason to get tough with them. After all, aren’t most terrorists Muslim—oh, wait no they’re not.
I don’t know that going in with an armed force is the right move, but it’s hard to argue it wouldn’t be a legitimate move in response to these extremists. And if they were black or Muslim I’m sure large numbers of conservatives would be decrying the government for not labeling them terrorists or taking them out instantly.