Food for thought:
The threatened and/or actual presence of determined, armed pro-freedom actors in the same immediate area as government troops causes predictable de-escalation by the government forces.
While saying no is admirable, the word has to be backed up with action. Otherwise “no” is just uttered all the way to and over the ledge.
For example, first they had the Stars and Bars taken down from atop the capitol building and moved to a flag pole on the capitol grounds. People said no, but it was moved anyway. Now, it has to be removed from the grounds entirely. There are people saying no, but it will be taken down. Count on it.
Suppose an armed honor guard was to stand 24/7 to insure that the Stars and Bars continued to fly over it’s historic and cultural cradle. Would that not change the paradigm? Would that not add muscle to an otherwise hollow “no”?Would that not demonstrate to all the world that enough is enough?
Of course such action would be replete with a great deal of uncertainty. Life itself would be brought into the equation. What stock of men would be willing to make such a sacrifice? Does that stock of men still exist?
One can read a hundred different versions of that April morning in Lexington. While all differ slightly concerning a variety of points, one aspect is common, the uncertainty of the action. To those men standing there, that uncertainty must have been horrific. What stock of men?
“No” is just a word. All of us need to keep that in mind. History chronicles not those that just said “no”, it only chronicles those that had the courage to face the uncertainty that “no” begets.
Sobering, I think. And frightful at the same time.