No. It's not bigotry to note that you advocated spilling blood to correct perceived anti-religious bias by universities. If you had not, you would have pointed out how you had been misinterpreted, rather than simply issuing denials. There is no other reasonable construction of your remarks. Using passive constructions "the willingness to use Second Amendment rights" only means you are a moral coward, too gutless to admit to what you yourself advocated.
"It's not bigotry to note that you advocated spilling blood to correct perceived anti-religious bias by universities."
It is lying in the service of bigotry.
"If you had not, you would have pointed out how you had been misinterpreted"
I did. You might want to consider the possibility that you're not bright enough to understand what was written.
It's also worth noting that you jumped on your twisted interpretation like a starving rat on the carcass of a dead dog. You made no attempt to determine whether you had interpreted my remarks correctly; you just vaulted onto your hobby horse and rode hell-for-leather for bigotville.
"There is no other reasonable construction of your remarks."
The only reasonable construction of my remarks is that, if America gets so far down the road to tyranny that no other course is possible, responsible citizens will take measures to restore freedom.
Your interpretation is neither reasonable nor supportable by what was written. It is a tendentious and hysterical attempt to discredit by straining for the most extreme and dishonest interpretation possible.
"Using passive constructions "the willingness to use Second Amendment rights" only means"
Only means what I have written above, and no slur you can fling will change that.