I see. Although we can still suggest that was for the better, given the state of the current Ukrainian government, i'd be rather nervous right now if they had nukes, even if that kept Putin away.

Sure. While it does leave them more open to Putin's predations, he is only exploiting the very real divisions within Ukraine. Those divisions are the real problem, and Kiev having nukes wouldn't heal them even if it would keep Putin from staging these kinds of brazen "interventions".

There's a decent chance that they wouldn't have been able to afford to maintain nukes, anyway. The expense is a large part of the reason they were willing to part with them.

Not analgous in any way. The lands in question are seperate from the land he lives on which is where this stand off occured. They surrounded his home rounded up and confiscated his cattle. And no matter what side you come down on this matter (whether he owes the money etc.) I cannot believe the number of people in this thread alone that are actually defending or outright advocating for, the government's agressive behavior?

The BLM and feds are the ones who initially escelated the situation and citizens responded. They didn't start rioting or destroying other peoples property etc. like in some cases of "civil" unrest. They stood up to an armed federal presence and won out. We should be applauding this IMHO.

Now that it is over it can be settled in a court of law, in a public trial where it ought to go.

If there's smth I've learned from American shootouts that happen on rather regular basis btw, that'd be the fact that US cops do not f**k around, they just murder you and your whole family even if you have a glimpse of thought to resist. Guns just give a perfectly legal way for them to get away with that. Ordnung muss sein.

BTW what is the big interest of the fed government in that land?

Well as i reacall they still haven't actually built the correct barrier wall around Cherynobal as well.

Hopefully we have more legislation like this one to put police in their place. 

http://theweek.com/article/index/229167/the-indiana-law-that-lets-citizens-shoot-cops

Maybe I should be clear on what I meant by freely available.

Switzerland has lots of guns, but nearly every male over 18 was conscripted into the army and has had gun safety training. In addition, the sale of guns and issuing of gun permits in Switzerland is much more highly regulated.

And there's also really no comparison between the amount of guns in the US and any other country in the world. The rate of guns is so over the top that it really is an exceptional situation.

at bolded,, thats false. you love it and actively support it on this site

I'm suprised the European governments don't say more against it, but they are probably collabratists. That would be just disgusting but it's probably about right. They never do what the people say and yet they have the cheek to call themselves democratic states. 

No respect for human rights or any constitution. Privacy is a big thing, we would be drones or slaves without it. You can't measure it but you it's sure not nice to have it breached. 

The only authoritarian thing (if you could call it that) i would do is to nationalise key sectors of the economy (no more than what Britain did up until the 1970s).

But I don't agree with authoritarianism in general. All of the social aspects of life, I think government should stay out of. Stuff like education should have more freedom in it. The state should nothing to do with family or sexual desire or whatever.  Why couldn't freedom of choice go for alot of things? All the freedoms of things we are guarenteed in the west are truly wonderful things

A bit generalised but I said what I meant. While the economy should be mixed. Essential services nationalised competing with private equivalents, everything else remain completely private with minimal regulations.