Re: Second Amendment:"Iran has the right to develop Nuclear Weapons"

In talk.politics.guns Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Jul 16, 7:57 am, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 13, 3:24 pm, Buck Mulligan <bkmulli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> In talk.politics.guns Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> So what do you see happening after Tehran is turned into black
glass?
>> >> In your opinion, who's going to throw the next punch?
>>
>> >You seem to think this is a prize fight.  A boxing match.  It's
>> >genocide.  Genocide gets you dead.  Understand?
>>
>> I'm asking you who, in your opinion, will react next? That's all.Just
>> curious as to your opinion.
>>
>> If you haven't given it any thought, just say so. No problem.
>
>You're missing the point.  It doesn't really matter who reacts next.
>Once the nuclear genie is let loose, disaster is inevitable.  When the
>U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, everyone in the U.S. was
>delighted.  Bob Hope cracked that Hiro****ma "looked like Ebbets field
>after a Dodgers game".  Ha Ha Ha Ha.  Then people got to thinking.
>Gee, they could do the same thing to us.  There is no way of seeing
>where nuclear annihilation would end, once it started.  India
>definitely wants to do Pakistan, and vica-versa.  China wants to do
>Taiwan, and possibly Japan, and vica-versa.  The Baltic States want to
>do Russia, and vica-versa.  The "Minutemen" in Arizona want to do
>Mexico, for Chrissake!
>
>Your approach is childish and dangerous.

What approach- asking a question? So you're saying you don't favor
dialog, just inaction?