I own real guns, many real guns. I'm a re-enactor (from the medieval ages on up, including late 18th century).
The only differences I see between what we do here and what re-enactment is about is the equipment and time period we cover.
So we re-enact modern tactics and situations? Okay, that still falls under the definition.
What would other re-enactors think? From experience, I bet they'd say "Cool, can we try it too?"
Too many of you seem to think the term re-enactor would limit or restrict what we do, and I really dont see where that perception comes from.
I know we re-enact tactics in use all over the world, and we use equipment from all over the world because that's how wars and conflicts happen today. We have the entire latter part of the 20th century to pick information from. Others choose to go with earlyer time periods.
Either is just fine. Why, for example, cant we re-enact what happened in Munich if we want to do a hostage rescue scenario?
The arguments on acceptability are again premature. It's too early to even think about that. All we can do now is consider the possibilities and change a few terms.
Read what Lynxicanus wrote; he nailed it perfectly.