To the Editor:
In reading the March eJournal interview with Claude Werner and the attached article Keep Your Tape Loops Short, as usual, your journal spurred me to review my beliefs and practices toward my daily attempt to learn and implement skills to improve my “defense of self.”
In Mr. Werner’s article, what caught my attention really was its simplicity. I mean, I truly doubt that I am the only one who occasionally (sometimes often) finds oneself enveloped in all of the training, techniques, equipment, philosophies, etc. often getting caught up in the wealth and quantity of knowledge that is available, only to neglect the most important aspect, quality. Many of the key points to Werner’s article were nearly like, “duh, I know that” recommendations. Recommendations, which when taking an honest inventory of what I do on a regular basis, get convoluted by the mind saying, “Yah, but what about this, or what about that?” The fact is, we can’t constantly be on the range, or at a new class, or reading. But at all times in our busy lives, we can practice just the simple art of paying attention.
I have to admit, in the scenario with the man who accosted Werner, (“Blah, Blah, Blah, Hey Man...NO!...What?...NO!”), was one of those moments that made me realize maybe I’m working way too hard at all of this. Now I’ve been in that exact situation so many times in my life, one would think (by age 47), that I would have the smoothest, most eloquent way of noodling out of the situation while maintaining complete situational awareness, politeness, and control all wrapped up into one beautiful display of situational control. Sadly, I have not. Those situations always “get the hair on my neck up” and always leave me wanting a better way to handle them. Unbelievably, only a few days after reading Werner’s article, THAT situation went down. Verbatim. “Blah, Blah, Blah, Hey Man...NO!...What?...NO!”
That was it! No haggling for more of my time, no shrinking of my safe space, nothing. It was over. It was so simple, so clear (for both parties involved, including my friends who were with me who were now very alert). So clear to everyone that if this interaction is going to be forced to carry on, the other guy knew his “easy mark” had been improperly identified. And really, isn’t that what we really want? A simple, extremely clear signal that says, “Nope, I’m not your guy.” I mean, the accoster doesn’t want to waste HIS time either, right? Some times we just need to break it down and keep it simple. Some times that’s hard to do.
Thank you all for sharing your expertise, time, and experience. It is wholly appreciated.
Mac from WI
To the Editor:
I am responding to DJ in Wisconsin who wrote: “Ultimately, my personal view is that we should recognize a person as fully adult at one age, whatever that may be.”
Why should this be? Our 51 societies have adopted diverse ages for: consent; marriage; driving; emancipation; etc. Why ought we abandon this practice?
In any case, the governing law is: “. . . not be infringed.” The relevant question is, then, whether any age limit (to buy, keep or carry) would constitute an “infringement.” If the lower-age limit were above the age to enlist (or be drafted) to military service then I think you have an infringement. If the age of enlistment were raised above 21 then I think you would have an infringement.
There is nothing “reasonable” about a limitation – even an age limitation. Either you have an infringement; or the law passes Constitutional muster. We can reason about whether a law does/does-NOT infringe on an enumerated or implied liberty; but the standard is “infringement.” We can reason about regulating gun possession by those of tender age; and, we can reason that it is incongruent to enlist 18 year-olds in military service while barring them from buying, keeping or bearing arms. We can reason about allowing parents to leave tweens at home alone; it may be incongruent to bar tweens from the means of an effective self-defense.
We, gun owners and constitutionalists, ought to take great care to ground our argument in terms of constitutionality.
Mark from PA
To read more of this month's journal, please click here.