I remember mention in a WWII documentary of pacifists who didn’t want to serve with a gun in their hand, but were happy to do anything else they could in the various armies they served in.
Besides, I’m not terribly sure that everyone who joins an army does so out of an altruistic concern for their country and fellow men. If they did, armies probably wouldn’t be reaching for so many benefits for them.
I would never impugn the bravery of a committed pacifist.
However, Bryan’s original assertion, if I may paraphrase, was that if it was inconceivable in any circumstance for a person to kill, then ultimately they would be subject to the whims of the powerful. And I would have to agree with that notion. Because if the powerful ever need to escalate the situation, they can always impose a level of force whose removal will necessitate a “kill or be killed” approach.
I point to the underground railroad. There is usually another way. May not be as simple.
Well, I guess a little bit more hi-jack won’t hurt. I consider myself a pacifist, and I own guns.
I do consider that the guns we own are part of me and my Wife’s protection. Protection is a bonus. I happen to like to shoot guns.
We live in the sticks. Police protection is the same for everyone. It’s OVER by the time LEO’s get there (of course). That’s the way it’s gonna be unless you can afford personal guards.
Do I think about how I would handle a break in? Yep. It’s not a fantasy. It’s no different than thinking about how I would handle a fire.
OK, I didn’t particulary care, it was just a spoof on the ‘Don’t go there, (girlfriend)’ tone to your post. It amused me to think anyone would plead “Oh, just don’t carry concealed weapons, boys, it’s not polite. So please just don’t.”
The trainjack was well underway, so I tossed my snark in on the way by.
I’m pro RKBA, and pro concealed carry, but I live in California now, so it doesn’t really matter.
So, who does get to decide who is sane and reasonable enough to be permitted to own a firearm?
And, in the case of the UR, as in all others, pacifists were able to survive because there were others willing to take up arms to protect them and what they were doing, even though they weren’t. Pacifism is a bankrupt moral philosophy, it depends on others to protect it so that it can survive because it refuses to do what is necessary to survive on it’s own. It can take great courage to be a pacifist, no doubt, but it is still an abhorrent belief system.
I’ll tell Ghandi.
Go ahead. I’ll point out that while pacifism was fine for getting rid of the British, it would’ve condemned India and Pakistan to decades of war.
Oh, wait, that is what happened.
You do that. While you’re at it you might want to point out that his Pacifism worked because the power structure he opposed was willing to let it work for him. He succeeded because of the compassion of the British, and people who had fought for many years for his right to passively resist. How long do you think a pacifist would have lasted against the Russians in Chechnya?
Wait, so you’re saying that if they’d killed a whole bunch of British people, India and Pakistan would be best of friends today?
Wouldn’t that be The Gubmint? I for one feel safer now.
That’s the most sickening thing I think I’ve ever heard of. There just aren’t words. What the fuck is wrong with some people?
I mean, it wasn’t even just one sadistic fuck, it was a group of them! How… what… ugh. 
No, only that if India had adopted a stance of pacifism and Pakistan had not, Pakistan would have become the brutal foreign oppressor. If both adopted that stance, some third party would have rolled over both of them. Post-independence India clearly could not remain so by Ghandi’s philosophy.
It was a cult. Pretty sick shit. I wonder if they had bizarre rituals where they said “Take, eat, this is my body…”
It pretty much worked out that way for France and Germany. Now they’re working on the UK together, instead of taking turns.
I’m such a Pacifist, I won’t even fight about it on the internet.
What are you?..
Spanish?? :eek:
<d&r >
Uh, you guys are aware that The Sun is a British tabloid, right? In fact, the person in that photograph bears a significant enough resemblance to “bat boy” as to rouse considerable suspicion…
Spanish?!? Them’s fighting words!
No, wait…