Concerning Oregon

Kent McManigal already pretty much captures the essence of the situation, so I'll just endorse his take, with one small addition:

I had no problem with the Occupy movement taking temporary possession of -- in other words, occupying -- various parcels of "public property," and opposed the violent removal of their encampments by police. Ditto for Black Lives Matter protests on "public property," street protests in e.g. Ferguson and so forth. In fact, I've taken part in more than one protest where, as part of the crowd, I have faced off with police for possession of this or that square foot of "public" ground.

I don't see that this is any different. Some state leftists are making a big deal about these protesters being armed (and, for that reason, are calling them "terrorists"). But once again, I've been in that position too, with left anarchist protesters. Sure, their arms were rocks and sharpened sticks rather than guns, but that's a matter of degree, not of kind, and frankly I think it would have been smarter for the lefties to emulate the Black Panthers in the '60s and tote real firepower.

Kent is right that these guys are probably all statists themselves, just of a different kind. So it's pretty much just another gangland argument. But any time any group puts itself in opposition to the existing state, I have to root for them at least a little. And I certainly don't favor the feds moving in and murdering them over possession of a building that the feds built with stolen money on stolen land. If there are no good guys here, there can certainly be better and worse guys.