What that bombing accomplished:
Derailed the movement to repeal the AWB.
Started the Domestic Terrorist bit, and immediately had it applied via the MSM to Christian whites with guns.
Defused the Congressional Hearings on the Branch Davidian Massacre, giving the impression that any score there had been more than settled by the terrorist bombing.
Ignored any Middle Eastern Contribution, including John Doe no. 2 and possible links to Abu Sayef.
Shut down the Militia movement, for the most part.
Reinforced the continuing demonization of white Christian gunowners, a meme that continues to this day.
Did it stop Government abuse?
Not only no, but hell no.
This is an issue people need to be made aware of. Ultimately, it affects their food supply. But the average urbanite isn't going to understand it. The average media person is an urbanite, and they won't be able to explain it, if they even had a notion to. (Remember, they are all in for global warming and saving the whales--not to mention keeping the polar bears from drowning).
Do you really think the MSM is going to fairly present any of this? Do you think they are going to explain why what the BLM is doing is wrong?
The mentality you run up against when land has been in your family for generations is that it is time for someone else to have a turn--Not kudos for having been good stewards.
Often you run smack into arbitrary laws contrary to that stewardship. (I know. Been there, done that, and denied the ability to cut and sell timber worth millions which was planted by an ancestor 180 years ago.)
Regardless of what I think of the issue of property rights and BLM excesses, I still fail to see how confrontation over a wildlife center, especially an armed confrontation is going to resolve this issue. I do, however see a great deal of potential for damage to the cause because of the way this will be treated.
If someone thinks armed protest is a good idea, then at least have it over an issue people will more universally understand and comprehend. Otherwise, the support (100,000,000 people if you want the same proportion the founders had) just isn't going to be there.
Most Americans aren't even going to understand the issue, and the MSM won't explain it in their haste to paint us all as terrorists. Just in time for Duh-1 to spew his gun control edicts (also illegal).
The government won't have to take our Rights, the people will clamor to give them up to be 'safe' from threats, real and especially imagined.
The choice is between actually winning and improving things, or just venting and giving in to counter-productive emotional impulses.
The Founding Fathers were radicals, but they were radicals who thought strategically.
I don’t think it’s a legitimate comparison to lay this issue side by side with Oklahoma city and McVeigh.
You said it yourself, that is was uncalled for retaliation. essentially a excuse to launch a violent attack against a government facility.
That’s not at all what this is.
I view this as civil disobedience. Not a attack on government. If that were so, they would destroy the facilities (such as they are) and kill a few game wardens.
This is not that.
It is civil disobedience, but since the BLM is armed to the hilt with tactical gear and military style ordinance to effectively manage some dirt and trees, this action requires that the participants be armed to effect a equalization of force. (lopsided as it is)
There is more to this then just the BLM and the justice department. It’s not revenge.
It’s fear.