Utah Phillips - What is a Pacifist?

No, that's not true. Everything Hitler did was legal! Auschwitz was *made* possible because (and every gun owner should take note of this), Gun registration was made law. And then, later just before the Holocaust was effected, gun's were outlawed! The gun registration permitted authorities to come to the home of the armed and seize those registered weapons. The German people were not pacifists! They were disarmed and made victim, by law!

You are mistaken. Passivism is the same thing as Pacifism. You would do well to find a Dictionary, so as to better appear as if you know what you're talking about.

Pacifism is opposition to war against nations where rulers start the war and the common people fight it. It has nothing to do with bopping a rapist on the head.

You are not entirely correct. Pacifism is a philosophy that opposes violence or aggression, entirely. Even self-defense.
I do not respect pacifism. I respect Pacifists have the right to choose to be assaulted, without exercising their right to self-defense, since it's their life that is in peril. But they don't respect their life and thus, when they refuse to defend it they know what it is worth; nothing!
Since they don't respect their life, why should anyone else?!Pacifists are cowards.

Sorry, but you're entirely off base. I'm a Quaker and pacifist. I refuse to fight in wars, but if anyone threatens violence to me or my loved ones, watch out. Pacifism is opposition to organized violence, wars, between political jurisdictions. Our government during WW II and the Vietnam War recognized whose philosophies didn't allow them to fight in wars, gave them conscientious objector status. They didn't have to oppose self defense.

No, I am not entirely off base. What you are espousing then is not absolute pacifism.
Noun 1. passivism - the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy addresses Pacifism. It's a worthwhile read.
As such one may realize that they are not an "absolute pacifist", when they claim they avow self-defense. Pacifism, by definition, is rejection of all violence. Absolute Pacifists would rather be killed than kill. Be harmed rather than harm.

You're right about passivism. Pacifism is different. I checked all 3 dictionaries in the house and wikipedia, and they define pacifism as opposition to war.

Consequently, one who claims they are a pacifist and yet would resort to self-defense if necessary, are not "absolute pacifist's". Because to defend one's self is the antithesis of "true" pacifism.

Yes, there's no issue as far as pacifism being opposition to aggression/war. However, did you check the other definitions that accompany that?!
The etiology of the word itself alludes to not only opposition to war, but opposition to violence of any kind. Including self-defense, for which violence is requisite.
(Running isn't self defense. ;-) )
The etiology behind pacifism denotes submission. Which is exclusive and unrelated to fighting or resistance.

Gandhi, was a "true pacifist".