Bundy and Ferguson were both, on the whole, "in the wrong".
Both were also, arguably, a sort of "push back" resulting from MANY different occasions when the government (in its various forms and branches and departments) has gone too far and pushed The People to the brink of rebellion, and is a symptom of a governmental system that has grown too large, too intrusive, and too oppressive.
Neither was a very good example of what the push-back was about. In Bundy's case the legal issues were tangled and questionable, but there are ties to "open grazing" customs going back a long ways that at least lend it some air of commonality with other farmers and ranchers around. The Ferguson case is more egregiously wrong because the "victim" was a brutal thug, and the "protesters" chose to loot and burn businesses who had done nothing to them and committed no wrong, making it look like "justice for Brown" meant "I get to steal a free plasma TV and set the store on fire".
Neither was exactly ideal, but if the gov keeps pushing the limits in the many ways it has been doing so, there will be more 'push-back' in the future, justified or not.