Suppose an armed gang of Paiute Indians took over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and demanded that ownership of the refuge be returned to them. How would the government react?

In this current “rebellion,” local and federal officers kept a low profile for more than a month, hoping that the “rebels” would eventually decide to give up and go home on their own. When that failed after several weeks, law enforcement officials took action in a way they hoped would avoid bloodshed. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way, because one of the occupiers seemed to invite the violence that was directed his way. As of this writing, four people are still holed up at the refuge, inviting more action by law enforcement.

My optimistic side wants to believe that a similar takeover by the Paiutes would be handled the same way. My cynical side, though, isn’t so sure, even though the Paiutes probably have a better claim historically to the land the wildlife refuge occupies. For one thing, I’m certain that there wouldn’t be much sympathy for the Native Americans by other so-called patriots. On the contrary, the same people who are supporting Ammon Bundy’s “militia” action would likely be demanding action against the occupiers, and while the federal officers might be patient, I’d look for local law enforcement to mount an immediate move to dislodge the occupiers. At the very least, I don’t think a non-white group would have been allowed to come and go as they pleased for a month before law enforcement displayed any serious response to the occupation.

In a sense, this “rebellion” was laughable, at least at first. This intrepid group waded into the situation without much planning. Consequently, they had to ask that supplies such as food and socks be sent to them, using, of course, a corporation owned by the dreaded federal government called the U.S. Postal Service. Apparently, that led opponents of the takeover to ridicule the rebels by sending pornography, sex toys and other unsavory stuff as a way of telling these guys what they thought of them.

The occupiers, though, made themselves look ridiculous by whining that the nasty feds hadn’t properly stocked the station for their takeover, so they had to re-use their paper plates. I thought they might ask the Pentagon for an airdrop of food and ammunition if in the event they ran short.

But this occupation is far from silly; it is a serious matter. These people, in effect, have declared war on the U.S. government. Their demands were that a piece of land that belongs to all of us, and has been owned by us since 1908, be turned over to people of their choosing as private land.

Now I am aware that the federal government hasn’t always been easy to deal with when it comes to public lands, but in the seven decades I’ve lived in Wyoming, I’ve seen nothing that tells me the state or any of its 23 counties would manage them better. Furthermore, I know people who, like the occupiers in Oregon, would like nothing better than to see the state take over federal lands because it would be one step closer to putting them all in private hands. That would quite likely be the result of state control if Wyoming’s revenue problems continue. It wouldn’t be long before the Legislature would find selling off choice recreational areas and hunting grounds to big money interests would give them money to spend.

But that isn’t really the point in the Oregon situation. The issue is whether we as a nation can allow a street gang calling itself a militia and claiming to be patriots to use armed intimidation to take what they want.

If this gang in Oregon can do that, why couldn’t a Native American group do the same to retake a piece of land they once considered theirs? Or why couldn’t an urban gang use the same method to take over a bit of public property it considers its turf, say a city park or a public school. If that sounds silly, take another look at what the rural street gang is doing and saying in Oregon, and ask yourself how it is different.

In 1786-87, Daniel Shays led a rebellion against state and local taxes, a rebellion that convinced George Washington and others that a stronger central government was needed. The result was the adoption of the Constitution, which, among other things, defined treason as “levying war” against the United States. When the Whiskey Rebellion against taxes erupted in western Pennsylvania in 1791, and an armed attack was made on a tax inspector’s home.Washington used his new powers to call up militia from four states. He led them toward the rebellion himself, but the rebels wisely disappeared before he got there.

Somebody should read that history to the “rebels” in Oregon.

I hope this rebellion can end without bloodshed, but that possibility is completely in the hands of those occupying the refuge. The rebellion will not end peacefully unless that gang wants it to end that way.