User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [4] October 27, 2016 at 9:22am

    I use to think that, then I read the constitution. Rights are for all, therefore, the constitution should ONLY be used when carrying a firearm.

    Do I recommend training? Yep, in school, where we teach how to be a good citizen, their rights, and their responsibilities.

  • [7] October 27, 2016 at 9:15am

    A single .50 placement is all that’s necessary. Or, if one is not in your vehicle (which I would question “why not?”), then might I suggest a .45 ACP hollow-point to a vital organ (like the brain)? I could get on board with a three shot (two center, one brain).

    It is absolutely necessary to stop the threat by any means necessary, keeping in mind that multiple attackers may be on scene and in need of deliver of same presents post haste. To that end, I recommend multiple mags with different types of ammo (never know when you need an FMJ to get through walls, car doors, etc.).

  • [4] October 27, 2016 at 8:55am

    Already have what you requested, it’s called a silencer.

    Just need to get stupid government out of the way in “regulating” firearms (which is against the Bill of Rights).

  • [2] October 3, 2016 at 10:39am

    You know, I don’t know a single person who is better of, financially, then 8 years ago.

  • [1] October 1, 2016 at 10:46am


    The evidence and facts are undeniable; The officers are proven liars just like you.

    The officers claimed they where stopping the victim based upon a warrant. No warrant existed nor could they produce one. Therefore, liar. I call them as I see them. I know a snake like you will not do it, however, I recommend that everyone follows after Jesus’s words, not “companion” for one will lead you to the new heaven and the other to Beelzebub the “Father of lies”.

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 2:15pm


    Unlike you, I perform a little work before I comment;

    “The deputy marshals claimed they were pursuing a warrant when they attempted to pull over Few, Edmonson said at Friday’s news conference, but District Attorney Charles Riddle III said he wasn’t aware of any warrants and Edmonson said Friday, “No warrant has materialized.””

    “Greenhouse is the son of a top assistant prosecutor for District Attorney Charles A. Riddle, who recused himself from the case on Monday, calling it “not good for any of us.”"

    “Those concerns were echoed by John Lemoine, Marksville’s 63-year-old mayor, who said he’s struggled since he was first elected in 2010 to reform the city’s Police Department and dismiss troublesome officers but has been hampered by Civil Service Board rulings.”

    “In a separate case, an Avoyelles Parish civil court jury in October 2014 found that Stafford had lied in a criminal proceeding and filed a false police report about the arrest of a man”

    “At least five other pending civil suits name Stafford as a defendant, and two of those included Greenhouse as another defendant.”

    “The suits include a 2012 lawsuit that alleges Stafford used a stun gun unprovoked and without warning while questioning a man. Another suit claims that Stafford used a stun gun on a handcuffed woman in the back of a police car while another accuses him of breaking a 15-year-old girl’s arm while wrestling her off a school bus.”

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 1:52pm


    Your assumptions based upon your belief that officers are justified by their actions, automatically, regardless of evidence and facts that we do have.

    “would also account for the officers firing at Christopher Few; something which obviously many of the Blaze commenters did not take into account when they chanted “excessive force.””

    “The criminal choice which Christopher Few made in deciding to run from the police ”

    “and are placing no responsibility on the actual criminal who was driving his speeding vehicle on a 2-mile chase in an attempt to escape the police while carrying a 6-year old child ”

    “Are you telling me that the results would have been the same if he had NOT RUN and had a child with him in the car?”

    “which would have resulted if the criminal had not attempted to escape the police,”

    “The police did not KNOW the child was in the car.”

    All of your ASSUMPTIONS of “the criminal” (which he was not), and “police did not KNOW the child was in the car” is absolute proof that you are a government troll and a liar. Why? Because you, obviously, don’t know, or you do and are a liar – which is it?

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 1:37pm


    RE: “But tell me, if the alleged criminal had absolutely nothing to hide, why run from the police, and lead them on a 2-mile car chase, while having a 6-year old child in the car? ” – Maybe, just maybe you should actually perform just a little bit of research before making ignorant statements like this. It has already been PROVEN that the officers LIED by saying that the reason why they where “stopping” Chris is because they had a warrant. No warrant existed. That is fact. So, based upon other evidence, we can take the fathers word over the officers, when he claimed that he was trying to PROTECT his son, having had prior PERSONNEL dealings with one of the officers.

    You are a liar, for you AUTOMATICALLY assert that an officer involved shooting is justified by what you intimate. You know you do this, yet say that you’re not making a “judgment” on any case. Yet in the same post, question the reasonableness of the citizens actions, NEVER the officers.

    You are proven a liar.

    Why haven’t you answered the question about our founders and God’s will for this country and their action to shoot and kill their police officers (what amounted to police of the day)? I don’t wonder, liar.

    I did not respond to your assertions because you’re wrong. History has proven this. Why is it that you still assert that Peter and Paul didn’t break any of mans laws, yet Nero, the Emperor of Rome gave the law / order to kill them (which is LAW).

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 1:20pm

    How do you know? You ASSUME she didn’t go there intent on killing someone. That’s not an assumption I’m willing to make, why would you? What evidence do you have to dispel that assertion? Just like the Chis Few case, how do you know the officers didn’t intend to murder the child? They have already been proven liars (asserting the had a warrant for his arrest).
    I can’t trust a liar, can you?

  • [10] September 30, 2016 at 12:58pm


    Sure, I mean what could happen? I mean, an officer wouldn’t lie when they attempt to kill someone, right? You know, like the two officers who said that they where attempting to execute a warrant on Chris Few, yet it was determined that no warrant existed. Oh……..wait……………..

    Nah, an officer would never lie on a police report and say that a person came at them with a knife, right, like in the case of Bobby Gerald Bennett?

    Stand with a liar and I will call you a liar.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] September 30, 2016 at 12:00pm

    Look further then this article. The officers lied when they said they where stopping this victim on a warrant. No warrant existed. Further, one the officers had a personnel history with the victims girlfriend. Finally, the other officer lied when he said that the victim attempted to use his vehicle to strike the officer. All rounds expended from “a comfortable distance” striking the victims vehicle broadside.

  • September 30, 2016 at 11:58am

    RE: “good people” – They lied by asserting that they had a warrant for the victims arrest. No warrant existed. Further, one of the officers had prior, personnel history with the victims girlfriend. Finally, the officer lied when asserting that the victim attempted to use the car to hit the officer – all shots fired from a “comfortable distance” – striking broadside the victims vehicle.

  • September 30, 2016 at 11:55am


    Only one bullet could not be matched, however, if the round went through the car door, then they may not have been able to match it (too much damage).

  • [3] September 30, 2016 at 11:54am

    The officers lied, They said they had a warrant. No warrant existed. One of the officers had a prior history with the girlfriend of the victim.

  • September 30, 2016 at 11:52am


    The officers lied, asserting that the where executing a warrant. No warrant existed. One of the officers had prior, personnel history with the victims girlfriend. The officers lied when asserting that the victim attempted to use the car to run over one of the officers – all rounds fired from a “comfortable distance” – broadside.

  • September 30, 2016 at 11:50am


    The officers initially asserted that they where executing a warrant against the citizen. This was the sole reason for the stop. However, no warrant existed. Further, the officers lied that he attempted to hit one of the officers with his car, however, all rounds hit broadside from a “comfortable distance”

    There also existed a prior, personnel interaction between the girlfriend and the officer.

  • [2] September 30, 2016 at 11:43am

    Is it so hard to be a liar? The cops LIED and said they where attempting to serve an warrant. No warrant existed. One of the offices knew the guys girlfriend, personally. If you pull up the original reports, and the reports since, you will find out why they are both being charged with murder.

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 11:41am

    This, of course, is not what happened. The offices LIED. Surprise, surprise. They also stated that they where operating on a warrant have the citizen – they lied. No warrant existed.

  • [1] September 30, 2016 at 11:39am


    Not sure of the European press, however, I did find this that also as links to other articles in support of the assertion by notmyname.

    Hope this helps.

  • [2] September 29, 2016 at 9:20pm


    Take you’re best shot, in this case. Like, maybe the alleged warrant (by the defendants) for his arrest.

123 To page: Go