I have to wonder: just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?

– Lambda Legal Legal Director Jon Davidson with a mild false equivalence but still one worth thinking about, given how often pacifism is shit upon.


My addiction to violence. Nice assumption there, buddy. 

And also a very nice way to leave a conversation by trying to claim what I say is false. My simple sentence is unfortunately very true.

Your poetic rant about Ghandi, doves, being special, and pizza also makes you seem intelligent, but until you explain what your super secret is, you’re just ranting lunatic who believes in fairy tale endings.

And don’t think for one second that you’re the only person that has ever “given thought to peace.” All of us have. However, many of us are grounded in reality. I would also never give up my humanity and freedom for some false, forced, oppressive peace. A conflict that ends in freedoms and rights taken a way is not a resolution.

In a peaceful world where murder is impossible, firearms would still serve as a nice form of recreation. 

If you insist on the right to own a gun, you insist for a tool of death for a living world in which that is antithetical. You are addicted to violence in that you cannot fathom a world without it.

Your sentence is true for an argument I was never having. Maybe. I shouldn’t deem it true because I’m not gonna undertake the logic puzzle of arguing it, especially with someone who saw what I wrote and said to themselves “but wait guns make us equal” rather than something disagreeable but appropriate like “but violence is an inherent quality to humanity.” Sorry to leave you hanging on that one.

The whole point of creating the litmus test is that it serves as a way to distinguish the people who are capable of talking about this shit, and if you see the peace Gandhi believed in & what I’m attempting to convey as “false, forced, oppressive,” or you think I am trying to strip you of rights rather than convince you that you only think you need them because of your own deep-set fear of humanity, you didn’t pass. You do not understand the principle of non-violent resistance and that it demands free decision, sometimes the only decision possible, by its agents.

And, you, too, are not reading what I’m writing: I didn’t say I was the only person who thought about peace, I even said I’m not special. I did distinguish myself from the “hawks and doves,” a classic phrase meant to conjure up distinct sides in a battle that I’m not participating in and you don’t have to either. You referring to it my mention of doves as poetic suggests that you’re unaware of that meaning, which doesn’t look fondly upon the potential of our discussion.

Possibly the fifth time I’ve written this, even in advance of people saying it because I expected the argument as I, too, have found pleasure in firing an AK at some beer cans: in a peaceful world where murder is possible but we choose not to employ it, guns cannot serve a recreational purpose as their original purpose ceases to be. They become an outdated symbol of a history we’ve abandoned. People still practice swordplay and archery because of that same addiction to violence— we don’t even use them for their intended purpose, we just love playing at it, pretending that the skills we foster can be used for anything but killing when other talents like tennis or juggling exist.

Watch that link at the end of my last post, it’s all you need to know in about ninety seconds. Everything we do is a choice between fear and love and you have the freedom to decide which side you stake your claim in every moment of every day.

And look at me go, I can’t tell if I’m continuing this conversation because I’m afraid of looking like a lunatic or if I love you as a human being too much to let it drop. perhaps the true fucker has been inside me all along




Okay, now we’re getting somewhere: you’re afraid of the police.

No. The police is afraid of something, if they need guns so do I.

Why? Is it because they have guns? We’re on the same page: the police shouldn’t have guns. It’s something I’ve said for years and is even part of a…

I call bullshit on people being equals without firearms. Without firearms, people of weaker physical build, such as a small person like me would not be able to defend ourselves effectively against bigger, stronger people.

Firearms are an equalizer. A bullet fired from my small hands is just as effective at stopping a criminal as a bullet fired from a physically strong law enforcement officer. 

Fuck this shit. This is killing me. The internet is killing me, I’ve barely slept over the past two days, haven’t eaten anything in almost 24 hours. I wrote a whole paragraph about seeing the forest for the trees and I’ve written over and over that I don’t care about gun control and anyone who engages with me is still so insistent about getting little jabs in, picking and choosing the shit they think they’ve got new, fresh thought on, the key to winning the battle, “calling bullshit,” all because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge your own addiction to violence. “Maybe if I look at it this way we’ll still get to kill each other but a few less preschools will end up massacred.” “Only pious, healthy people get guns, not the bad guys, then we’re safe.”

Here’s the litmus test: agree with him or not, if you can understand why Gandhi would suggest that the Jews non-violently submit to death in the face of the Nazi regime, I’ll put my emotional well-being at risk to talk to you tumblrites. If your understanding of that concept goes beyond “but then the Nazis would just kill everyone and we’d all be dead and living in Nazi world” and you can picture the timeline of non-violent resolution to the war from that point on, then you’re thinking from the same sort of perspective I am.

But I’m not giving away the secret. That’s my defense. That’s how I’m going to separate the thinkers from the repeaters. The answer ain’t on Wikipedia. Nobody ever taught it to me and I’ve never heard anyone come up with it independently. I’m not special, but I’ve given thought to peace, more than the screeching lip-service of the doves and the hawks caught in the same two-sided mentality we’ve suffered since humans existed.

You’re so desperate to establish yourself as correct and there were never any answers other than living happily and in peace. I’m gonna eat a pizza and play some videogames, fuckers.

Just a quick reminder for those who have chosen the path of “nonviolence” as a response to the killing of Osama

MLK said this when he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize:

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time — the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. … If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

And Gandhi said this about Hitler’s attempted genocide:

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.”

This is nonviolence. This is pacifism. Are you prepared to stand by these words? Not that I’m strong enough to do so. I need to keep exploring before I have a definitive answer, but it’s been rolling around in my head all day that MLK and Gandhi wouldn’t just disapprove of celebrating a murder— they would have disapproved of the murder. They would have disapproved of the war, they would have asked us to love the attackers. heavy stuff man