Attending the Gunblogger Rendezvous was fun (except the annoyance of driving to Reno, but that's a personal thing).
I arrived at two conclusions, one about gunfighting, and one about the future of gun control in this country.
First, gunfighting.
It's not often you get to be up close and personal with someone who has survived the bad end of a gunfight. Brendan "Dan" McKown has done just that, and it was VERY instructive to hear his story firsthand.
As Dan relates his armed encounter with a man who was evidently intent on killing everyone that he could in a large suburban shopping mall, he was either in the right place or the wrong place at the time.
Although Dan suffers greatly from his choice to confront the terrorist, he did the right thing, IMHO. In his own words, had he not confronted the terrorist, making the terrifying choice to put his life on the line in armed combat, many, many more would have died, due to the fact that the police used the old-style response of surround-and-contain rather than immediate direct confrontation. Dan was all that existed between the terrorist killing probably dozens of people and the actual outcome of only him being hit (and grievously wounded). Apparently, President Bush thinks so too, since he just sent an autographed photo to Dan.
All the above being said, the GFW attitudes in this country, and Dan's knowing acceptance of them are probably what got him shot, and prevented him from killing the terrorist outright on first engagement.
You see, Dan was worried about what image he was presenting, walking through the store he was in WITH HIS GUN OUT, IN THE READY POSITION, looking for the intruder he knew to be nearby. He was worried that he, and not the intruder, would become the target of responding police.
He put his gun back in his waistband. Next, his luck ran out, as he and the terrorist ran into each other, literally. The terrorist had his AK ready to fire, in the marching-fire position. Dan was not ready to fire. The terrorist got the drop on Dan, and shot him five times at close range.
How different would this encounter have been if Dan had been ready to fire? Hard to tell, but the terrorist would likely have been hit by fire from Dan's EAA Witness, loaded with 17 rounds of 9mm. It's possible that they would have both hit each other, but maybe Dan could have gotten the first shots off and killed the intruder before he could react.
Dan didn't get the first shots off. He didn't get any shots off. He got shot. All because he was worried about a phase of the gunfight that he wasn't in yet.
Was that a mistake? Sure, but it is a mistake that I guarantee that most of us would make in the same circumstances, unless we have a total combat mind-set.
Dan can be forgiven for not having a combat mind-set. He wasn't trained to be a soldier (or cop).
Dan's lesson for me is two-fold: when gunfighting, the immediate target requires all my attention, and trying to think too far ahead in a gunfight is dangerous. The immediate objective in ANY gunfight is to kill your target.
The other conclusion that I came away from the Gunblogger Rendezvous with was prompted by a short address by Joe Huffman, the director of Boomershoot. You may recall that Joe was fired for his interest in, and promotion of, the Second Amendment. He wasn't fired from a job as a mail clerk, either. He was fired from his position as Senior Research Scientist for an important Department of Energy consultant company.
Joe Huffman asked the assembled gunbloggers to become activists, not just defenders, of the Second.
Think about that for a moment. If you are a gunblogger, or if you already defend the Second every chance you get, as most of us do, you already consider yourself an activist.
Joe doesn't consider our "usual" support of the Second to be sufficient.
Joe is correct.
It's simple, really. There aren't enough of us. If we were large in number, just saying "I support the Second Amendment" would be good enough to maintain this important civil right (yes, CIVIL RIGHT!).
We aren't large enough in number, so we have to raise our voices, literally. We have to shout out our support of the Second. We have to put actual time in supporting those who are in a position to multiply our shouted message (politicians, mostly).
Above all, we have to change the entire face of our consideration of the Second.
The Second Amendment is a Civil Right. Just as much as a right as Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble, Freedom to Petition the Government.
A Civil Right.
Do YOU think of the Second as a Civil Right? Could YOU see yourself as the leader of a Civil Rights demonstration to support the Second? Could YOU see yourself engaging in non-violent confrontation with forces of the Government who want to suppress the Civil Right called the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
You need to be introspective here, and formulate strategy for just such an increased level of activism.
Why?
Unless I and all of the political polling groups are wrong, the House of Representatives, the only real bulwark of conservatism in these last few years, will probably revert to the control of the Democratic Party in November.
That means that by January, new attacks on the Second Amendment will be drawn up by the Majority party in the House. The Senate, even if it retains GOP control, will do so only with the support of RINOs, who will follow the liberal lead and vote for any gun control measures that the House passes.
That leaves only President Bush to protect the Second for the next two years, anyway.
Personally, I don't think he's up to it. I don't think the POTUS believes that protecting the Second is important, so I don't think that he will veto any gun control bills that come his way. He is on record as being ready to sign an extension of the "assault weapons ban", had it been sent to his desk.
So, it's time to put some "active" in your Second Amendment activism. The first thing you MUST do is swallow the bile that rises in your gorge at the mention of the dysfunctional GOP, and vote a straight ticket this fall.
That may not be enough, because a lot of former GOP voters are NOT going to swallow that bile, they are going to vomit it up and try to wash the taste out of their mouth with minor-party voting, just to make a "statement".
If you are one who is thinking along that line, be advised that line leads to the eventual destruction of the Second, and after your and my guns are gone, what are we going to keep the overbearing Government in check with?
Another part of your activism must be to mention the unmentionable: that the Second Amendment is the Enforcement section of a Limited Government Constitution. Without the Second, and an armed citizenry, limited government is an idea just waiting to be snuffed out.
The past decade has seen activists successfully project the idea, if not the reality, of limited government. No one threatens the government with armed action if it gets too big, but the simple fact is that two hundred million firearms make a powerful statement, even if their use is not imminent.
We know that, and the liberal, big government enthusiasts know it as well. They know that the reduction of individual rights necessary to implement a true Socialist state will not happen with those 200 million firearms out in the hands of the citizens, so, when they next take power, and that could be just weeks away, they will immediately begin to strategize the reduction of that arsenal of democracy.
B.O.H.I.C.A.
