Regardless of what response you favor, BLM did back off in the face of armed intimidation

[christx30]

59. "Thugs with guns that think

they're above the law."
That's pretty much how I describe many federal officials and police.
And it was a peaceful protest, in that no one was killed. No shots were fired. It was people standing their ground against what they view as a bunch of thugs. People that were not going to be herded into 'free speech zones' (which begs the question, what exists outside that zone?). Disobeying orders they did not feel a judge had any right to give. Would you follow an order to pay something from someone you did not feel had any authority over you? A thief with a badge and a court order is still a thief. And he can only steal from you as long as you keep silent. As long as you don't resist.
And, this was a protest. The difference is that there was force to back it up. If there was no force, the BLM and their thugs would have swept everyone aside like they were nothing. Don't hate the people that recognize the reality of the situation. Occupy got no where because the cops came out in force to take down the camps. And there was no clear, unifying message from weeks of protests.
Bundy's message was clear: Get the hell out of here. This message could not be ignored like Occupy was. You think NYPD could have stormed the camps if the protesters were armed and willing to fight? It would have been very bad for both sides. Most of the cops would have called in sick that day.
The Feds use force. The Feds have weapons. Most of the time they feel they can do whatever the want. You just want them to be the only ones that can. I've just seen too many abuses of power to know there have to be checks against that power. And you in your free speech zone isn't going to cut it.