The Bundy Case

It's so easy to come down on one side or the other when situations are clear cut, but often, the facts are shadowy, malleable, and subject to interpretation.
Such as?  Bundy vs. The Government of the United States.
As I understand it, the Bundys are ranchers whose cattle have grazed on government land for generations.  (Not incidentally to this story, the U.S. government is the largest landowner in the country.)  A new law was recently passed which forbids ranchers from this practice.  I believe the protection of an endangered species of turtle was the stated reason for the ban.
Bundy refused to obey, his cattle continue to graze on government land, and some have been seized.  Fees and fines against him have now grown to over a million dollars, which he refuses to pay.
Armed government agents are gathered near the ranch and so are self-appointed "militia"--private citizens with firearms.  The latter vow to "defend" Bundy if a shot is fired by the government.  That means a blood bath, possibly similar to the Waco horror so many years ago.
Ordinarily, this would be an easy call for Mimi, a progressive veering toward anarchism:  well-meaning private citizens against the criminals running the government?  Go, Bundy champs!
Hey, wait just a doggone minute.  I can never countenance violence except in the very extreme case when it's the only alternative if one's self or another person's is being threatened with serious bodily harm at that moment.  Add to that the caveat that it's used only up to the point where it stops the aggressor and not beyond. (I didn't go to Catholic school for nothing.)  This situation doesn't fill those requirements, so if I say I'm on the side of Bundy and the "militia" members, it means intellectually only.
But am I?  Let's suppose this isn't taking place in the romanticized-out-of-all-recognition west, involving a ranch and livestock, but instead, follows a scenario something like this:
In Atlantic City, New Jersey, a law is passed that disallows parking garages.  Of course, all casinos have such conveniences, but now they're illegal; patrons must park outside, next to the buildings, in all kinds of weather.  This has discouraged people from coming and cut down on profits.  Donald Trump protests--loudly--and lots of people around the country are outraged.
Take a look at the slot action on any given day:  It's fuelled mainly by little old ladies whose main pleasure in life is a monthly excursion to Borgata or the Golden Nugget or Trump's Castle.  They stoke those greedy little machines with their widow's mites in hopes of hitting it big for fifty bucks or so.  Who would not champion the right of these aging dreamers to get a little such enjoyment in their drab lives?  So we must form a human wall around Trump's place, say, and dare the government to enforce the law.  If they use force, we will respond with force...
But, uh, is this upholding the rights of little old ladies to act like idiots and throw away their money?  Or is it putting one's life on the line for a despicable, obscenely wealthy clown who would sooner kick those old ladies down the stairs than give up his parking garages?
Believe me, I can sympathize with the "militia" members who are standing dazed in the wreckage of what used to be (they believed, anyway, and perception is everything) the greatest country in the history of the world.  Where a guy who worked with his hands could earn decent pay and support a family and buy a house and have health benefits, then retire with a comfortable pension.  Where you could save a bit and accumulate interest.  Where you knew there was a big divide between those in charge of companies and those who simply worked there, but it was nothing like the yawning chasm that developed later.  Where you were confident when your country was at war, that it was a just war, waged only in defense and to promote democracy.  You knew that those who fought it included all citizens, the rich as well as the poor, because we were all in this together.
No more.  And the men and women with guns see themselves as defending a sacred trust: The kind of country in which they grew up and that they must restore, so their children can enjoy the good lives of good citizens.
Okay, they may have voted for Romney and they may be secret racists and they may link God and country without a lot of thought--but I tell you, I sympathize. They may be pining for a society that never existed, but I sympathize.  They're standing alone and afraid in a world they never made and, yes, I sympathize.
They were sold a bill of goods--the Brooklyn Bridge--and when they went to pick it up, they found it was immovable, bolted down with the most formidable rivets in the history of the world:  the alliance between government and corporations.
So am I "for" the Bundy side?  Oh, no, not really, but nor would I ever, in a million years, side with the great, bloated, more corrupt every day, force that now comprises the United States government.
Addendum:  I just read this by Lucy Steigerwald on AntiWar.com, which encompasses much of my attitude this whole troubling affair:
"Whether Bundy is in the right or not – and he is, and isn’t – the troubling part of some of the Waco comparisons is the feeling that if something happened to him or his family, there would be a crowd of people ready to justify the violence if it came from a government gun." 
Yes, there it is: If private citizens commit murder, it's a crime and a horror, but if it's done under some official sanction, it's understandable.  Reminds me of the latest Fort Hood shootings and the reports that authorities there are having to deal with such "violence."  It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying:  Isn't violence their stock in trade?