Where Does the 2nd Amendment End and Terrorism Start?

 Here's the story: Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been grazing his cattle on public land for decades. For the last 20 years he has refused to pay grazing fees to we-the-people who collectively own this land. He said his ancestors had been running cattle on the land since the 1870's and it is theirs by right. He also objected to grazing restrictions the BLM was trying to enforce to protect the endangered Desert Tortoise. He had his day in court and the judge told the BLM they could confiscate his cattle until he paid up. The BLM rounded up around 400 of 900 cows. Hundreds of well armed protesters, who disagree with the concept of public land or at least federal public land, showed up to exercise their first and second amendment rights simultaneously and demanded a stop the round-up. Some of them also blocked a nearby highway. Fearing a violent escalation (remember Waco?) the BLM backed off and released the 400 cows, allowing Bundy to continue to graze his cattle for free for now.

This unfolding story raises a lot of interconnected issues.

The first is the question I raised at the top: Where does the 2nd amendment end and terrorism start?
Should the BLM, representing we-the-people, have given in because protesters were armed and seemed dangerous? Should we ask government range managers to face large groups of angry armed people to do their job?

Then again having seen the excessive force so often employed to stop avowed peaceful protestors one could be excused for concluding, based on this story, that it might be better to show up armed next time.

Then again, imagine the balls and ovaries a group of unarmed, say pro-tortise, protesters would need to show up to express their first amendment rights in this situation.

The feds claimed a lot of land occupied by Native Peoples. Is this different than claiming land occupied by Bundy's ancestors?

There is a lot of loose talk about second amendment remedies to tyranny. One the one hand, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. (You know like slavery and Goldman Sachs). And just because something is hard to stop doesn't make it legal (like NSA spying and Goldman Sachs) But as always, one person's tyranny is another person's constitutionally implemented law.

All this ties in with the current "Santa Barbara Reads" title "Big Burn" which discusses the origins of the Forest Service under Teddy Roosevelt and the birth of the whole concept of public lands in this country.

I'd really like to know what y'all think. And I recommend "Big Burn". They have many copies at the library.