I guess this has been longer ago, but the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge takeover by the Bundys was essentially a militia challenging the government to armed conflict. I'm well aware that the case against these people ended in a mistrial because of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. That doesn't change the fact that conservatives have threatened violence in recent political protest.
I suspected somebody would bring up Bundys. However, given that the whole dispute is about grazing fees in some piece of federal land, I can't really take it as a political statement. Yes, Bundys proposed some political theories as justification of their actions, but if there wasn't $1M in grazing fees, I don't think any of it would happen at all. The fact that violence was threatened is bad - but it is hard to take this as a genuine example of politically-motivated violence.
Well, luckily for all observers, the Bundy's erased any doubt that they were making political statements with their other armed standoff with federal authorities. You refer to the elder Bundy's grazing fees dispute, which played out at their Nevada ranch. This actually involved a grievance the Bundy's themselves held. I refer to his son Amon Bundy, who took up the cause of another father and son from southeast Oregon, who were jailed for starting fires on federal land, clearing brush. They were originally sentenced to some amount of time, which they served. A judge later determined, after they were already released, that there sentencing was somehow improper, and that they had to serve more time. The father and son willingly complied, and turned themselves in. Amon Bundy and his fellow Yeehawdists took over a National Wildlife Refuge, and essentially tried to provoke another standoff. They want federal lands to be wide open to do whatever they want with, to strip resources, and effectively get something for nothing. They see their inability to do whatever they want, and the consequences of doing so, as tyranny of the government.
