Well, I left out the obvious after our government stole it from the Native Americans
Well that was the thought behind my snarky reply, I admit.
But there is also a whole lot of other things going on here with the "legitimacy" of these people's claims (they have none)
Look, nobody likes dealing with bureaucracy and there's no denying that there's plenty of that with public land use issues. With good reason, though: what is the alternative to government acting as a mediator in public land use? Private ownership of all BLM/Forest Service/National Parks and the disbanding of the Dept. of the Interior?
The whole purpose of the BLM is to allow the public, and private corporations, to use these large areas of "empty" land in western states (this is where and why the American Indian issues come into play, given the fallacy of this premise). The agency already makes provisions for ranchers, miners, recreation, etc. Of course not everyone is happy, because not everyone wants to use the land in the same way. Again, what is the alternative? There are plenty of reasons why the sagebrush rebellion fell apart: there wasn't, isn't, and really can't be any political unity behind it in the first place.
The Bundy gang, though, was making use of the these provisions without even paying the fees to the BLM for DECADES. If I remember right they owe millions of dollars, and see the BLM asking for payment as "tyranny". In other words, they want to socialize the costs of their ranching but privatize the profits. Or, they want to be the ones to decide who has land rights, not the BLM. They are scum bags and ignorant of American history and the principles of democracy.
If people want to talk about streamlining the bureaucracy of public land management in the US, there's better ways to do it than promoting violent sedition.
We can definitely agree that these people should not be the ones to represent that process.