search
top

Pacifists

Thirdpower is surprised by anti-gun Brady clan member Kelli:

I don’t care how oppressive this government, or any other future government, becomes. I would NEVER advocate using the U.S. Constitution to justify taking up arms against them.

I don’t get why folks bother with her. There’s an old saying that you should never wrestle with pigs, because you’ll both end up covered in shit, only the pig will like it. I think Kelli falls into that category.

That said, it’s a common thing to hear from pacifists that violence is never justified. I don’t consider pacifism to simply be wrong, I consider it to be immoral. There is a price to be paid for liberty, and pacifists are free riders. They enjoy liberty because other people stand ready to engage in violence on their behalf.

We’re lucky to live in a society where people can afford these naive beliefs, but other people are willing to sacrifice, at best their own psychological health, and their lives in the worst instance, so that people like Kelli can continue to believe there’s “There are other ways to fight. More humane ones, at that.”

21 Responses to “Pacifists”

  1. Robb Allen says:

    A while ago, back when reasoned discourse flowed freely on the Brady Blog (BWAHAHAHA), I decided to stop conversing with both Macca and Kelli~.

    Only one of two things could be true about either one of those women. Either they were mentally incompetent or simply were trying to make smokescreen for Paul (or whoever it was that wrote his columns). Nobody can be that stupid without being intentional or not in control of their facilities.

    Part of me thinks they knew they had no argument, so they posted ramblings that couldn’t be logically dissected (because they make no sense). When you ask them a direct question, they simply talk about something else. It’s creepy in a way.

    However, expending time on them only wastes valuable time. They both don’t realize how damaging they are to their own side, so it’s ok to have them say a few things, but don’t try to engage them because just like they’re parasites on freedom, they’ll suck out the value of your posts.

  2. thirdpower says:

    Yes, 99% is just a waste of time, and then you get a gem like this.

  3. thirdpower says:

    I would agree with the pacifism thing except she has stated in the past she would defend herself or her family. Just not with firearms. This is just a level of extreme loathing that would be the joy of any abnormal psychology student.

  4. Matt says:

    But she would defend the idea of others coming to her defense (approved police) with firearms? That somehow the use of force by those means is ok in the hands of trusted others but not regular citizens. This despite the fact those trusted others are human and would be regular citizens themselves in any other line of work.

    If she agrees to the concept of self-defense except by means of firearm, she is not a total pacifist. They believe any violence is wrong no matter the circumstance or context. I’m with Sebastian on them.

    I find her comments regarding the Founding Fathers offensive. She asked whether they were traitors. To be honest, according to the British Crown, they were. That is the level of risk they took in order to found this country. Had they failed, we would all be Canadians (to quote another poster) and they would have hung for it.

    But to say what the Founding Fathers did was ok but our society doing in a modern context for similar reasons is wrong. Our Government would consider such insurrection to be treasonous. Only history would decided whether it was or not. History is written by the winners. If the rebels win and form a new Government, it isn’t treason by the Declaration of Independence definition. If they lost, it would be up to the Courts in place to decide.

  5. Sebastian says:

    It’s good for us to laugh at, but I do have one thing for you to ponder, that I’m glad Robb alluded to. The best thing we can really do on HuffPo is expose the Bradys as shucksters who are out to deceive the ignorant into buying their agenda. Many people don’t read comments, but some people will read a few, and might follow a thread if it’s interesting and germane to the points addressed in the post.

    What if Kelli isn’t really that dumb, and her purpose is to bait pro-gunners into endless back and fourth in an attempt to get people to stop reading quickly, so that all people see is bickering rather than seeing that the Bradys support their agenda with disinformation? She may just be a useful idiot, but if the Brady’s can’t have their echo chamber, pointless bickering is the next best thing. I would suggest we stick to the facts, and let Kelli twist in the wind. The important thing is to keep good information about Brady close to the top so people coming along to Paul’s posts can read it, and judge for themselves how much credibility he has.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I find her comments regarding the Founding Fathers offensive. She asked whether they were traitors. To be honest, according to the British Crown, they were. That is the level of risk they took in order to found this country. Had they failed, we would all be Canadians (to quote another poster) and they would have hung for it.

    She doesn’t seem to really get what we’re arguing, which isn’t that revolting against your government isn’t treason, it is, even when that government is illegitimate. There is no right of revolution in the constitution; it states quite clearly that it’s the law of the land. The second amendment was penned to ensure that the people have the capability to assure it remains as such.

  7. thirdpower says:

    She’s very good at playing the “top of the post” game. After her remarks have been completely debunked, she posts at the top w/ her characteristic misrepresentations of what was said (lies) and her usual obsequious platitudes towards the BC and Paul.

  8. kaveman says:

    You have a valid point that arguing with Kelli is a waste of time, but allowing all the lurkers and fence-sitters on the BC’s now defunct blog
    and HuffPo’s blog the true nature of our opposition is time well spent.

    Besides, we only debate Kelli because noone else will put up a sustained effort to defend the Brady Bunch. As I’ve said before, Kelli does more to protect the RKBA than hurt it.

    Sebastian writes…

    What if Kelli isn’t really that dumb, and her purpose is to bait pro-gunners into endless back and fourth in an attempt to get people to stop reading quickly, so that all people see is bickering rather than seeing that the Bradys support their agenda with disinformation?

    In the past I entertained the idea that Kelli is actually pro-2A and has simply taken on her ridiculous persona in order to discredit the Brady Bunch. Do you think Paul Helmke reads Kelli’s rantings and thinks to himself, “Man, I’m glad Kelli is here to stand up and be the public face of the Brady Campaign.”

  9. Sebastian says:

    No, I doubt Paul even writes his own blog entries. But I do think that whoever does it, if they are good at what they do, is quite happy to see everyone addressing Kelli’s idiocy rather than Paul’s distortions.

  10. chris horton says:

    Right now, right here ~ are a loud band of Gun Extremists who are misusing the Constitution and using their past or present affiliations with the U.S. Armed Forces (eg. Thirdpower, Zen21tao…) to threaten ~ either playfully or not ~ to overthrow with arms an elected government

    I didn’t know this was supposed to be fun.She must really be a blind person, who believes everything she hears.And I don’t think there’s anything or one being “playful” about it,either.

  11. Breda says:

    I want to take Kelli shooting.

  12. BobG says:

    “I want to take Kelli shooting.”

    Just how do you mean that, Breda? LOL

  13. DirtCrashr says:

    To me, her “NEVER” position – it sounds strangely enough like she’s saying, “My country right or wrong”… :-)

  14. straightarrow says:

    If she really believed what she said, she should commit nonviolent suicide, because all that is possible in her life has been bought, paid for, and still protected by rough men willing to do violence for her life and its preservation. I think she should reject that gift if she believes what she said.

  15. Greg Morris says:

    Breda – if you meant that in the “I’d like to teach her about the joys of firearms”, we already tried that back when the BC Blog allowed comments. She said she wouldn’t even bother coming out to a range. She’s more interested in her own illogical ideology than, I dunno, maybe learning something new.

    However, I’ll offer a $100 to whoever manages to take Kelli~ to the range, and teach her how to shoot a pistol.

  16. Breda says:

    Greg – yes, I did mean exactly that. She is obviously afraid, maybe another woman would be able to convince her that she can overcome that. Where does she live anyhow?

    And BobG- no, I did not mean I’d use her as a target, silly ;-)

  17. thirdpower says:

    There have been numerous offers to her to disprove various claims that she stated were lies. The result would be the destruction of several firearms.

    Obviously none of us has lost any inventory.

  18. kaveman says:

    Breda…

    Kelli lives in Chicago where she does volunteer work for the Chicago chapter of the Million Mom March. She also has suggested that she teaches part-time and her husband works for the government(can’t remember what level). Good luck in tracking her down.

    If you manage to find her and get her out to the range, I will send you some deep fried ice cream wrapped in bacon.

  19. Breda says:

    WILL WORK FOR FOOD

  20. thirdpower says:

    Kave:

    IIRC, she claimed her husband was a “federal employee”, had “reviewed our posts” and declared them “harassment”. Remember the whole internet police farce? :)

  21. Greg Morris says:

    ThirdPower – there were too many farces to keep track of. Or maybe there was just one long non-stop farce.

top