How is that glorifying violence?
replies(4):
That being said - the President of the United States, just stated on one of the largest social media platforms used in the U.S., that citizens of the U.S. are now to be shot. From his words, immediately. It could even be viewed as "they should've already been shot at"
If you don't understand how this is glorifying violence, I don't think you can be made to.
“In declaring war on 'young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign,' Headley said, 'we don’t mind being accused of police brutality.'
'They haven’t seen anything, yet.'
Headley said Miami hasn't been troubled with racial disturbances and looting because he let the word filter down, 'When the looting starts, the shooting starts.'"
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DS19671228.2.19&e=--...
I am not in favor of looters, but note that https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf emphasizes the necessity of graduated response. I presume state militia units share the doctrine (Figure 2.1) that lethal response is only called for in the face of an armed threat, and that it must be the minimum response necessary.
(found by googling four words: national guard crowd control; 2nd page of results)