"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.
Your original post Yes, and much of academia is striving to make belief in God one of those things. This is evil, and must be stopped, even if it require that we water the roots of the tree of liberty.
I don't see in your post any qualification, actual or implied, specifying "if America gets so far down the road to tyranny that no other course is possible". Then, later, you called me a traitor, and said your post was an "assertion of the moral right and the willingness to use Second Amendment rights to protect First Amendment rights from traitors.". Now, how is the right to keep and bear arms to be used, except by violence or the threat of violence? And where did you qualify your threat?