User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • March 28, 2015 at 8:28am


    Re: “Most wars aren’t fought for the reasons stated” – Are you stating that most written history is a lie or skewed in some fashion? If this be the case, then how can you or I make any determination that any historic document is accurate? “Everything is a lie, nothing can be trusted”? Is that your position? “The Declaration of Independence is a lie”. Wow, are you sure you want to take that position?

    Re: “The British were essentially attacking a military base and the war started” – now it is you that distort history, for Lexington and Concord where not British government “military bases”. It appears that you forget that the British where the lawful, duly authorized government of the day. So it makes no sense to state that the British government attacked a British military base within their controlled area.

    Re: “British wanted their guns.” – That is what history states. Review the supplied links as proof. If you have nothing in rebuttal to prove your assertion, then it falls flat.

    Re: “your willingness to kill police officers” – Again, if the state removes your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights, what would you do? It appears that you are unaware as to what these are, for you would have no recorse in rebuttle through “courts” or other means.

  • March 27, 2015 at 6:42pm


    Re: “I believe the Colonist were getting wealthy and saw the enormous wealth that they possessed and decided to break away from Great Britain.” – Please read Declaration of Independence to see listed reasons

    Re: “It seemed to be that you were trying to imply the war was fought solely for the right to bear arms.” – Incorrect. I am stating that the “last straw” was the actions of the lawful government of the day decision to destroy the private, military grade firearms that the subjects had purchased, trained, and maintained.

    Re: “accountable for your reckless and dangerous behavior.” – Partially true, for if you read the final ruling in the SCOTUS majority opinion you will find that it’s not the speech, but the reasonable response. Laws where never made to modify behavior, but to hold accountable those acts that are deemed reasonable to cause harm.

    Re: “kill police” – I have not evaded the question. I have responded in like maner to that of our founders. You just don’t accept the respons.

    Re: “take guns” – Now it is you that refuse to respond.

    Re: “Professional police” – Negative. Do not agree. See SCOTUS rulings that I cited.

  • March 27, 2015 at 5:42pm


    Re: “Revolutionary War was fought for one reason” – Incorrect, however, it was the final straw. Further, the events leading up to the colonist of the time cannot be disputed, nor their actions against their lawful government.

    Re: “We do put limits on the first amendment” – Incorrect. We do not place limits, however, reasonable reaction to speech can be used to hold accountable for that damage. For instance, if I tell a crowded theater that no fire exists and that I’m going to yell fire just as an expression, then I cannot be held liable for that speech as reasonable harm cannot be established.

    Re: “tea” – check the tax rate that caused the response.

    Re: “I would not kill the police if they came to take my rights away. We live in a country of laws and I have a right to have my grievances addresses in a court of law” – I guess you missed the part where LEO removed your rights to the courts, in my example (btw: the courts now have allowed the federal government to place a citizen into “detention” without access to lawyers, courts, or even pressing charges – clearly against the 6th amendment)

    Re: “take guns” – I will respond in like fashion of the founders who started this country. Now, at what point will you rebuke an illegal action committed by a government?

    Re: “Professional Police” – You are incorrect. See SCOTUS rulings: Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzales

  • March 27, 2015 at 3:56pm


    Re: “I don’t believe the Revolutionary War started over the right to bear arms.”

    Yes, it was. Further, I would recommend reading the speeches of Patrick Henry to further understand the mindset of the day.

    Re: “strict constructionist”

    The ability to keep and bear arms is for ones self preservation, and not based upon specific technologies. Should the 1st amendment be limited because of the Internet, TV, or radio? Should the 4th amendment only apply to papers on your person, but not your laptop, tablet, or phone? The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with technologies, but inalienable rights that each person has by the mere reason that they exists.

    Re: “police”

    My comment was not a question but a statement. The British army within the Americas served as both military and police. This is matter of fact, not supposition, question, nor an act of subversion.

    Re: “kill police”

    Again, what does the word “infringed” mean? What if the police came to take away your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment against you? Would you allow it? Would you allow a government that takes and gives “freedoms” to those that they see fit regardless of said contract between government and the people?

    Finally, who is personally responsible and accountable for your safety and the safety of your family?

  • March 27, 2015 at 3:07pm


    RE: “gun control”

    Little history lesson should be in order. Actual events leading to the “shot heard round the world” was, in fact, due to the lawful government of the day attempting to destroy military grade firearms that the colonist had amassed, trained, and maintained. The “fringed gun owners” learned of this order and did met the police (British army – as they served both positions), i.e. lawful and duly appointed employees of the state, on the battle field. They met the government officials in an open field in direct opposition to the lawful action. Now that we know, by example, of the actions that started the revolutionary war of this country, how can you conclude that said colonist would then start a country by prohibiting arms by the public? Remember, that all of the arms used in the revolutionary war where private arms held by the colonist. Further, the Bill of Rights (which was a fulfillment of a promise to exist before several of the states would sign the Constitution) first 8 listed where direct rights held by the individual. The first part of the 2nd amendment dealt as supplement to Section II 1. of the Constitution. The middle and latter part is quite evident “the right of the people to keep and bear, shall not be infringed.” If, by your way of thinking, is true, then why would the 2nd need be listed when Section II 1. is quite evident – no need to say the same thing twice?

  • March 27, 2015 at 1:01pm

    Re: “I’m not sure, what is your point?”

    Are you unable to commit to a definition of a word? For if you are unable to commit to definitions and the clear conveyance of thought/ideas then conversation is clearly not possible. I have found that in order to converse about a subject, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the meaning of words used in said conversation, for many people speak with words without understanding their meaning. Therefore, in an attempt to prevent said misunderstanding, it is, sometimes, necessary to establish meanings of words used in said conversation on the onset. Hence, how do you define “infringe”. Further, do you have an understanding of the events leading to the battle of Concord and Lexington which started the revolutionary war and how that applies to the events of today?

  • [1] March 27, 2015 at 10:39am

    So as to ensure a basis for discussion, what do the word “infring” mean to you?

  • [1] March 26, 2015 at 4:56pm

    I intentionally selected items that where, in my opinion, wretched – just like this test.

    Worthless. vile, and uterly a method to pump information.

  • [4] March 26, 2015 at 4:52pm

    Re: “It’s a FREE Country…” –

    For the most part, I would have to disagree. We have exchanged some inalienable rights for others, but are not “free” as the founders vision reveals.

    - As an example of this, slavery is abolished (good thing), however, the state now MUST know every birth, marriage, and death (recent control for which the state has no business in knowing as the only authorized count is every ten years).

    - We now have instituted laws in order to “control behavior”. Laws where only meant to hold those accountable for their actions against another.

    - We now have “regulations” that prohibit the carry of a firearm. At the time before the civil war, it was possible to walk into the White House with a firearm

    - The 4th amendment prohibits state from searching people without a warrant, yet you cannot travel via “commercial” means without the state performing a search

    - The 6th amendment prohibits indefinite “detention” of citizens, yet courts recently allow it.

    - Regulation of firearms and prohibition of military grade arms – (the battle at Concord and Lexington was due to possession of military grade firearms by the founders)

    - Employees of the state exempt from laws

    - Laws unjustly applied and unevenly applied

    - Laws that require contract under duress

    - Required to do business with the state in order to survive


  • [2] March 26, 2015 at 9:17am


    As usual, atheist take a specific passage out of context, thinking they know better than anyone else.

  • March 25, 2015 at 5:10pm

    As usual, your wrong.

  • March 25, 2015 at 5:09pm


    It is apparent that your comment was/is from the point of view as an atheist, therefore, I am attempted to gain insight as to YOUR comment related to a person of faith.

    Re: “there are laws against breaking and entering, laws against rape, and laws against murder” – if no morality exists other than the point of view that you subject yourself to, then what difference does it actually make? “if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want.”

    “I suppose in the context of this story, there are laws against breaking and entering, laws against rape, and laws against murder….” – Phil did not specify that his example was in this country.
    So, if no laws prohibited such actions, are they wrong? If so, why?

    Re: “I’ve never heard such nonsense….” – I suspect that you have.

    It is apparent that you do not understand the questions that I brought forth.

  • [1] March 25, 2015 at 2:03pm


    Re: “rule of law” is based and in response to your comment.

    Re: “makes no sense in the context of this story…” – You where the one to bring up rule of law. To which rule of law do your refer too, for many “laws” where/are created to kill/mutilate others.


    To which “morality” do you base your life upon?

    Re: “…centuries have been horrific things…” – Evidence, or are you just toss that out there without context? Remember, as in our current law, actions have consequences. It appears to me that you don’t agree that actions against the creator or actions against another or society should have consequences. So, then, its back to what do you use as a basis for “morality”?

  • [2] March 25, 2015 at 1:32pm

    Re: “no morality or rule of law”

    To what basis do you provide for “morality”.

    “rule of law” – Germans killed Jews under the “rule of law” – did “rule of law” make it right or moral?

    Responses (10) +
  • [12] March 25, 2015 at 1:30pm

    By your comment, I can reasonably conclude that you are an atheist troll.

  • [38] March 25, 2015 at 11:17am

    Where does the Constitution allow for the federal government to select/choose what foods are to be used/consumed by anyone?

    Responses (1) +
  • [23] March 25, 2015 at 8:56am

    Hate to see someone die, however, this is a good response by the state. Homeowner protected himself and his family, state cleans up the mess.

    I would be glad to send that man some match grade ammo to replace his loss.

    He is started his job as father correctly, at least, showing his children by example that you protect your loved ones and yourself. The 911 call is just for cleanup, not protection.

  • [4] March 25, 2015 at 8:41am

    RE: “No excuse for killing an officer. NONE!”

    Not saying that in this case it happened, however, what if an officer came upon a scene where a person was legally carrying a firearm on their back, then said officer pointed his firearm at the law abiding citizen – thereby causing a lethal force situation. Maybe you are unaware that the rules of lethal force are equally applied to all citizens, LEO and general public. Once any lawful person is placed in immediate fear of loss of life, they are able to defend themselves against the aggressor, no matter who they might be.

    I can show many youtube videos that would have allowed for an officer to be killed for their act of lethal force by a law abiding citizen. This includes non involved citizens who witness said acts of lethal force. Citizens, just like LEO, are able to use lethal force in protection of an innocent person including the use of lethal force against an employee of the state.

    Are there “excuse for killing an officer” – yes there are times when killing LEO is appropriate. If I witnessed that officer who was raping the women on the side of the road in his uniform – you can bet I would have killed him, as there is NO EXCUSE for RAPE.

  • March 24, 2015 at 9:49am

    Re: “CISCO joins the ranks…”

    Not really. Closed source systems can be hacked with hidden vulnerabilities. As long as the person who discovered said vulnerabilities is not forth-coming and the programmers do not find it no one is the wiser.

    Open source (viewable source by any and all) allow for review of the code in order to adjust/remove issues – or change the code/encryption to suite / make non-standard. One could, conceivable, possible, could happen, change-use multiple encryption methodologies on both ends of firewalls / devices embedding known file types in the “file transfer” with a blind udp. For instance, “hello world” in c could use the start of the file to jump x number of lines within said file for on portion (i.e. window draw / size) with another jump towards the end of said file for the control (button push, ect.). The other lines would be the encrypted info. The old technique was to concentrate a hidden file at the end of a gif file.

  • March 24, 2015 at 8:56am


    Why are you a hater? Why do you invoke hate speech when someone quotes the Holy Bible? In your view, should the Holy Bible be burned?

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love