If you are stopped by law enforcement - there are blue lights behind your vehicle and they are ordering you to step out of the vehicle one at a time do you propose ignoring this because you don’t like government? That by it’s very nature would be anarchy.
By my calculations the Bundy Militia or whatever they called themselves had:
Occupied property to which they had no legal authority in a state where they did not reside.
Vandalized the property and used vehicles and property to which they had no legal authority.
Those offenses were far more serious than a traffic violation, but blue lights behind vehicle = pull over. I believe they would garner more public sympathy for not liking speed limit laws or petty traffic laws than the armed occupation of the property of another.
I have read the stuff you posted - it appears to be an interpretation of the constitution that ignores the basic fact that the lands were purchased by the nation “for the nation” prior to the states here (I live out here) even existing.
Using the arguments this group based their beliefs on makes a far stronger case for turning the land back over to the Native Americans who were there when it was purchased (or the tribes their before it was taken from them). Land ownership is messy business - always has been and always will be, but most ranchers (I live next to one who grazes my property with his cows) manage to make a living within the current arrangement paying for grazing rights.
It appears that many like CTH jumped into the fray making more logical arguments than Bundy himself did, but these are matters that have been decided over decades in court. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans support the concept of public lands and that is why nothing has changed.
Much of what I have read to include “the Clinton foundation is going to turn over the wildlife refuge for uranium mining” is not supported. Does anyone really believe they will turn a National Wildlife Refuge into a uranium mine? I believe the Clinton foundation represents crony crapitalism at it’s best by it’s very nature, but what legal basis did the “rancher patriots” from other states believe an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge would bring about change or win others to their side? For what it’s worth, they never mentioned anything about the Clinton foundation that I saw.
Lots of conspiracy theory being put out there, but the legal basis of their arguments have been read by me and it boils down to the fact that we live in a republic and the republic has spoken for over a century on this topic.
FWIW - I think one of the main arguments that I support regarding public lands is that they should be used to promote economic activity that benefits us all in a responsible manner. The problem is that politicians are in charge of that and it’s doubtful that the main beneficiary will be “ranchers.” The public has spoken and if this is tyranny we have lived under it for a century.
If I am out in the middle of nowhere and I am being followed by known hostiles, no I don’t stop. I keep going until I get to town where there are more people and witnesses. Why didn’t LOE let them get to town? They knew where they were going. Why ramp it up?
We do indeed love those wide open spaces out West. More than half of the Western states are controlled solely by the federal govt. Half of Oregon is under federal control (BLM and USFS) and more than 80% of Nevada (1/4 in Washington, as I recall?). Jobs have been lost to many people out there due to the SJWs of our Bureaucracies. Proper stewardship is possible, but more and more of the land is taken by the Feds and not properly managed. That is why the Hammonds are in prison, branded as Terrorists! Now they will lose their land, too. That is justice???
We could go back and forth on this, but suffice it to say that Bundy et.al. had every right to go to Oregon and to protest Govt. abuse. We all should have that right. Yes, there will be a day in court. Bundy, et.al. will go to prison. Yay, the stop sign runners and bird lovers are finally off the street.