I got that. My point is unless there's a call for help from the local/state governments or a clarion call from a state's citizens I just don't see the President garnishing the support to march the US military into Chicago, Minneapolis or New York City.
I just don't -- and I firmly believe he wants to.
That sort of thing has happened in more sane parts of America, where groups of locals got together with local LEOs and moved to nip this anarchy in the bud. Not once, but twice in the nearest town, the BLM protest was met with a significant group of folks on motorcycles having a nearby gathering of their own, and while exercising their Second Amendment rights, too.
But that was in areas where the local government had the good sense to just STFU and let the matter be handled, unofficially. While the protest proceeded (twice), there was no rioting, no looting, and those who showed were only the tip of the local iceberg that gave a chilly reception.
There is, however an additional risk in most of those jurisdictions, in that the handwringers and Karens and pantywaists would have a cartwheeling fit over armed conservatives in large numbers, and would then call in the National assets, not on their fellow Marxists, but the property and business owners who showed up to defend their homes, persons, families, and cities. There can be no illusion that if that remedy is sought in those urban, Marxist, Democrat-run environs, it will have to be pursued to completion, not mere capitulation, and that such acts will quickly become in the media a casus belli to take up arms against the very patriots who quelled the insurrection.
That national attempts to infringe the Civil Rights of those who even
might stand for law and order would suddenly be promoted in the Media, replete with gruesome images and best glamour shots of any wounded or killed in that endeavour (all sweet innocents from One of the Big Towns, or Peoria, or Bumsquat, or some sweet liberal suburb who had never hurt a fly--although they'd Molotov ranks of police and buildings galore) would pop up with a vigor not even seen in the instance of any school shooting, is a given.
Who wants their town to be Lexington, or Concord? Or Pratt Street? Because, of necessity, a war only bandied about and rarely seriously considered with all the potential for evil and fundamental change such conflicts bear, would have started,
and would have to be pursued to its conclusion, for good or ill.
To fail in that pursuit would mean that every weapon of the courts and the Legislature (and the Media) would be brought to bear against any recurrence, even on a small scale, and that the requisite tools of any future conflict be made anathema in the eyes of the silly sheep who believe themselves wise, despite having just been relieved of Communist aggression by the very people they would attack.
That commitment, that desperation of relief, has not yet reached the level where enough are willing, where enough feel justified to risk everything (Lives, fortunes, sacred Honor, 401K) to quell local matters, no matter how large the city under siege. Perhaps that ensues from the populations of such enclaves being the ones who voted for the leadership in those instances which enabled or fostered such anarchist nonsense in the first place, and it's a hard sell, even among those deeply principled, to get them to risk all they have to bail out those who insisted on drowning in their own sewage.
The Cities routinely vote heavily against the rest of us, and while we might miss the opera house and all those restaurants we couldn't get into without wearing a tie, we'll sit and drink coffee on the porch somewhere, or perhaps in a local cafe, and reminisce while we look askance at every vehicle from out of town and gently check that our weapons are secure in their holsters and safe from sight.
