Quote of the day—ColeenMonroe

Guns are good for one things and one thing only: Murdering.

ColeenMonroe
Tweet on January 9, 2012
[I guess that is why the police, military, body guards, armored car drivers, and my daughter carry guns. That means she either is profoundly ignorant or hasn’t thought things through.

She also says she is a pacifist. That makes her a freeloader.—Joe]

21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—ColeenMonroe

  1. Perhaps a “pacifist” who calls for more laws, to presumably be enforced by threats of violence, is better called a hypocrite than a freeloader. Either way, she is asking someone else to do violence on her behalf.

  2. I think this is a PERFECT petard to hoist the antis on. Have them stand up against self defense, and lethal force laws. But make sure its ALL OF THEM!

    Otherwise make them admit it would be OK to beat an intruder to death with a baseball bat…just not ok to shoot them with a gun.

    Even the most whishy-washy gun people in America tend to be pro self-defense.

    There are very few people who can seriously say it is NOT OK to defend your own life, or the lives of your loved ones.

  3. ‘pacifist’ – n. a person of such poor moral compass that they’ve actually made the conscious decision that nothing good is worth fighting for…

  4. I respect (though disagree with) pacifists if they are real ones–which is to say that they will not condone violence even if someone does something to them. If they would let the bad guy go, and not call the police or anything, even if he just killed their kid or something, thus rejecting *all* use of violence. Most people who call themselves pacifists will not do so, however, so it is then that I call BS.

  5. Publius, I know a Buddhist fella who is a TRUE pacifist, and even he admits that he isn’t sure he has the resolve to not fight for his life, or protect his wife from harm. But he does believe that ALL violence is bad, and believes in re-incarnation so that if you allow yourself to be murdered rather than fighting back you are cosmically rewarded for your enlightened behavior.

    I admire his resolve, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong in my world view. He’s a really smart guy so we have some good discussions.

  6. I will also note that most people who are “Pacifists” are simply people who will do anything they can to outsource defensive violence to total strangers, whom they admonish for their violent acts.

    The proper word for them is “Cowards”

  7. I think anon @ 0602 has it almost right.

    It’s not so much that “true” pacifists are unwilling to defend themselves that I have an issue with, and it’s not that they have decide that “nothing good is worth fighting for,” it’s that they have decided that it is morally wrong to protect someone else if doing so would require violence. They have decided that their own spiritual “purity” is worth more than the lives of innocents.

    It’s selfishness, pure and simple.

  8. When she says she is a pacifist, she is lying.

    Pacifists do not support ANY violence. Including having cops acting as armed agents to enforce gun control.

    How does she expect the police to enforce her gun control scheme? Via strongly worded letters of reprimand?

    When some gun-grabber claims pacifism, they are really just being squeamish. They want to cops to disarm or shoot these gun owning cousin humping redneck retards for them.

  9. A couple from Heinlein:
    A “pacifist male” is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described “pacifists” are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger.

    and

    Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay – and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

  10. This all goes back to the question, “Why are gun grabbers so violent?” I think most of them start out with just a generic love for leftist causes, and join up without much thought as to the details of gun control other than a vague association of the NRA with the Republican Party.

    However, when the details of gun control enforcement come out, as well as the ugly results, many of them quietly melt away, embarrassed to be associated with a cause that supports sending SWAT teams after women who don’t want to be raped. The ones left in the cause are people with serious mental problems–hate-filled psychopaths like Ladd Everitt and self-absorbed professional victims like Joan Peterson–who don’t mind a few people dying in order to achieve their selfish personal goals, and in fact are frankly a bit thrilled by the idea.

  11. ubu52:

    Guns and bullets don’t kill.

    I kill.

    Some folks, generally those who insist on hurting me or mine, really need killing. The vast majority don’t. I would rather have more people put themselves in the latter category.

  12. “They have decided that their own spiritual “purity” is worth more than the lives of innocents..

    Interesting. And to refuse to defend a child is to deny that child the choice between being a pacifist and being defended.

    Anyway; Jesus carries a Winchester as we all know.
    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Model_94_Winchester

    I bet he makes his own reloads using hand-cast bullets too. Being a carpenter, he’s no doubt pretty good with that sort of thing.

  13. Pacifism, the belief that all violence (even self-defense) is wrong or harmful, and a belief in protecting innocents through self-defense, are not mutually incompatible beliefs. I would like to think of myself a “pacifist”, but I think I’m still a little too quick to anger, and a little too manipulative of those around me, for that title to be appropriately applied to me.

    Having said that, however, it isn’t wrong to believe that it’s wrong to hurt or kill another human being: how many people have justifiably killed, or even maimed, in self defense, and have been emotionally scarred for life? Yet it is something that we ought to be prepared to do, when it is necessary to defend innocent life. Indeed, I would consider the libertarian principle of non-aggression to be a rather strong version of pacifism: do not initiate aggression, whether it be verbal or physical, against others, but be prepared to defend yourself when others attempt to use it against you.

    To claim that guns are only good for murdering, has nothing to do with a “pacifist” worldview. It’s a myopic worldview that doesn’t understand the legal and moral differences between a justified killing, and murdering someone for your own pleasure or benefit. And this worldview is likely the product of someone who only allows herself to see the bad that people do with guns–the murders–and refuses to look at the good that is done, by those who defend life! And yet, to hold such a worldview, as so many people do, but believe that cops and soldiers ought to be allowed to carry weapons…I do not understand such a mindset. And it’s likely that no one can, because of the inherent contradictions!

    Ultimately, if we are going to ban guns, we ought to start with the police and the military. After all, more violence–and more murder and mayhem–has been committed by government officials under the color of law, than by all other groups of people combined!

  14. “I do not understand such a mindset. And it’s likely that no one can, because of the inherent contradictions!”

    I think it can be explained as simple statism, i.e. authoritarianism. The belief that the state takes care of things while the people obey and serve (or worship) the state. For a regular citizen to have a gun then, is for that person to deny the omnipotence of, or to trample upon the jurisdiction of, the state (taking some matters into his own hands which are properly reserved for the state) which is suspicious at best, and blasphemy at its worst. Hence you are an evil person if you want your own gun (or want to create your own business model, drive whatever type of vehicle you want, etc.).

    You are a blasphemer. The stated rationalizations often confuse us when things are in fact much more simple.

  15. If you ever read comments on European forums, you’ll find a lot of people don’t believe the police should carry guns either. They believe everyone should be unarmed.

  16. ubu – so you think the standard issue truncheon that bobbies carry is not a weapon?

  17. Europeans believe police shouldn’t carry guns? Yeah, right. That’s why the Dutch – the most vicious and violent of nations – are bidding out a new police sidearm contract as we speak.

  18. The “vaccination effect” is of social utility, but only where part of the population apart from the agents of the state are able to “vaccinate” their assailants. With heavy metals.

  19. This quote is from a video of Newt at, (I think) an NRA conference in TN(?), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWsE9jvwjLA.

    “The right to bear arms is not about hunting, it’s not about target practice. The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard Freedom, so that no govt. can take away from you the rights which God has given you, and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world, and they knew that if that had not had the right to bear arms they would have been enslaved, and they did not want us to be enslaved, and that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America.”

    Comments such as Colleen’s, which, though easily falsifiable, yet will not change her/their minds, only convinces me all the more that nothing they say can be believed, and no matter what they say otherwise, they would happily seize all firearms if they could. The strategy, whether tacit or explicit is the slow weathering away of our rights, “endowed by (their) Creator”, in a slow sending hither swarms of agents to eat out our substance, in the slow hope none of us will dare cross that line at the Lexington Green of our front doors. They make such a crossing not less, but more likely.

Comments are closed.