In law, there is a general acceptance of the concept of retributive, or proportional, justice. For instance, if you are caught speeding down Nicholson while trying to make it to a 9:30 a.m. exam on time, you will receive a ticket.
The federal government was caught on national television with its pants around its ankles two weeks ago in a display of what can only be described as grossly disproportionate justice.
A 20 year standoff between the federal government and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy came to a head two weeks ago when roughly 200 agents from the Bureau of Land Management descended on Clark County to round up hundreds of cattle Bundy has allowed to graze on federally owned land in the area.
According to the BLM, Bundy owes them more than $1 million.
Naturally, Bundy disagrees. He maintains that the land is owned by the state of Nevada.
Now, I could debate the ethics of summarily changing policies for grazing on public lands no one besides ranchers use without consulting said ranchers, or the feds deciding the scope of their own authority, but that could take days. So let’s assume, just between us, that Bundy is in the wrong, which a federal court decided he was back in the 1990s.
The standard procedure for whenever someone owes money to the government is that a lien is placed on that person’s property until the debt is paid.
Where the boys at the BLM went wrong here is when someone decided, “Hey, you know what? Let’s just go out there heavily armed, scare a bunch of people and confiscate this man’s property at gunpoint!”
And they did just that. What happened in Clark County looked more like military action than a simple transfer of cattle from one area to another, complete with body armor-clad agents, multiple Tasings and a not-so-stealthy set of snipers on a ridgeline providing overwatch.
Last time I checked, a high-powered rifle will not help you move cattle from point A to point B, unless point B is dead on the ground.
Anyone can see how this scenario was starting to look vaguely familiar to the actions taken by the Department of Justice at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in the 1990s.
So in response to what was starting to look like good old fashioned police state thuggery, Bundy asked for some help. What resulted was an outpouring of patriotism that made me swell with pride. Hundreds of protesters and a few militia groups came to stand in solidarity with Bundy, in defiance of what they saw as an unjust state of affairs.
Sen. Harry Reid would have you believe that these people are “domestic terrorists.” However, I’d like to point out to the senator that if he thinks these protesters are terrorists, then in his own view, the Founders must have been downright villainous, considering they took up arms over a modest tax hike on a few commodities.
The rhetoric used by the senator is precisely why people feel as though they have to bring firearms to a protest  — they are speaking out against a government that is increasingly detached from the people it serves, uses heavy-handed military tactics to settle a simple matter of real estate and sees fit to restrict constitutional liberties whenever citizens speak out against it in the form of “free speech zones.”
What happened at the Bundy ranch is just another reason the federal government should not be allowed to do many things other than defense. All it knows how to do is use force.
Ryan McGehee is a 21-year-old political science, history and international studies senior from Zachary, La.