“That one really depends on your armament, logistics, and relative numbers.”
If one wants to fight a politician when they say something you agree with and also when they say something you disagree with, there is no end to the battles you can fight with politicians.
When someone you may not like says they want people to “fight for their constitutional rights”, they should be applauded, not fought against - and certainly any talk of “armament, logistics, and relative numbers” is not an appropriate response to that.
“That a free America can not compromise here.”
Where is “here”?
Do you not understand that after we fought and won our independence, that it was the politics of reasonable (and even some unreasonable) men that brought us to form a successful nation?
The political “fight” is what was bequeathed to us by our founding fathers so that we could have a mechanism to avoid this sort of “armed fight” over political things. That’s not the fight we should be spoiling for right now.
Those who would avoid armed fight never achieve liberty.
Nor do such cowardly leaches deserve such.
The sniveling wimp who waxes on about the intellectual capacity of the founders while insipidly dismissing the necessity of their military endeavors is not heir to their gifts of reason.
Sincerity is everything,
if you can fake that,
you got it made.
As I recall GW signed a bill that would build a border fence, after the election, he had K Baily pull the funding for that same fence.