Answer me this:

Let's say that your friend was threatened by an armed person. Would you take up arms to defend him?
If not, would you hurl yourself at the assailant, or stand between him and your friend, so that the latter may escape and be saved? And let's say that your pacifism means that your friend dies. Would you still think that your actions were just?

So you're saying that morals are irrelevant in this specific example? Then what use are they? A true pacifist would have responded: "I would have stood in my friend's assailant's path." Why? Because it is the only way to save your friend's life, while preserving your morality. If you are only a capricious pacifist, then don't call yourself a pacifist.

In using the term pacifsm i ment lacking the killing instinct,

What i was saying was that in times of trouble, morals(what ever you're morals may be) take back sit to instincts,

so you may end up doing things you might regret later,

You see pacifism as having certain morals

It's two different things,

I guess pacifist of the first kind can kill without filling sorry for it, i already answered you before,

Pacifism, as I had thought, would be the moral position that violence towards others is intrinsically wrong, not "lacking the killer instinct."