By storming the compound and taking the children out by force? Government negotiators repeatedly asked Koresh to send the children out, and he refused.
If the compound had been stormed by "patriots" instead of by government forces, I'm not sure the outcome would have been much different.
That's the attitude I'm talking about.
"The Government" did so and so, so I have no responsibility.
If the children died, frankly, if anyone living in peace on their own land died, then -WE- did something wrong.
The attitude has become "The Government" is not synonymous "The People."
That means we have no responsibility for what the government does, and thus, no control over it either.
Actually...no need to storm anything.
If 500 'patriots' had just shown up and taken up camp between the jackboots and the nuts, then what would've been the harm of the police standing down and handing "the seige" over to the local sherriff?
They could've arrested Koresh at a press conference or a book tour.
Tell me. What would've been a better outcome for the confidence in our civil liberty?
A* To have had the Government 'lose face' and back down having lost some of their own in the line of fire during the ill-conceived initial attack/assault on the compound...and to have peacefully arrested Koresh later on for an orderly trial and death penalty a la McVeigh...
-or-
B* To show for once and for all that no amount of force and pre-trial violence will be spared if you dare oppose the iron fist of "The Government," essentially mooting the real utility of the 2nd amendment forever.
Really. Which do you think would be better for the health of the Republic, not to mention the health of the children?
The latter shows that the POLICE are the Law. The former shows that THE PEOPLE are the Law.