User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] October 24, 2014 at 11:39pm

    I was thinking the exact same scripture. The world does not want Christ and hates anyone who follows Christ & God. That is the way it must be.

  • [14] October 23, 2014 at 10:11am

    I have ghostery and a few others, but due to the way this site “works”, I must allow some functions in order for the comment section to work. Further, they have added code so that if you right-click – to open a story in a tab, it launches a window for an ad.

    Worse than any of the alphabet outlets!

  • October 22, 2014 at 4:25pm


    Not “my logic”, that is what the law states. You cannot brandish a firearm – no one.
    Don’t believe me, good, look it up for yourself in your own state code. The obvious reasoning is to prevent someone from inducing “immediate, reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death”.

  • [6] October 22, 2014 at 2:41pm


    So, “to be clear”, you fully support police breaking the law if it’s “for the good”?

    Please state you response in a clear, concise manner for I do not wish to misunderstand you.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 2:32pm

    Re: “violate the rights of the local residents and property”
    Is it your contention that if a drunk smashed a display window, that act, alone, would authorize the state to use a sniper to kill said drunk?

  • [8] October 22, 2014 at 2:22pm

    Let me clear up a point. I am not AGAINST snipers on a roof-top. Far from it. I am all for being prepared in case things go south. I am specifically targeting (pun intended) the pointing of a firearm at people that the police did not intend to shoot at that moment. Use a spotting scope for that, not the scope attached to a rifle – it’s not like they are cost prohibitive.

  • [4] October 22, 2014 at 2:13pm

    Not sure where you are heading with that rant/comment. Question; is it LEGAL for the state to point a firearm at a person? Would you expect the police to pull out their service sidearm at a rally (dunk or not) and point it at citizens? How about a person that was video tapping an officer arresting someone from accross the street, and he pointed his firearm at the person?
    Now, I believe that you have had some training in firearms, do you think that the person holding the rifle followed those rules?
    I know the law in my state – no one may brandish a firearm – and that is exacly what this individual did. You say that people should have “dispersed” – and you are right, I would have, then called state police and FBI for a shooter on the roof of xyz building brandishing a firearm.
    “perhaps they had known felons” – Unless the felons where activly breaking the law, then, no, lethal force was not authorized.
    “purhaps they had no rounds…” – The “brandish” law does not stipulate ammunition in the chamber, in the firearm, or even in the vacinity.
    “Ivy League should institute…” – I agree, however, you can’t fix stupid. Since the start of this country, we have had stupid people do stupid things. Unfortunetly, you cannot have liberty and everyone do the right thing all the time. I am sure that some (or one) of those will actually grow up and realize how stupid and immature they were.
    It’s easy to grow old, but it’s difficult to grow up.

  • [4] October 22, 2014 at 1:43pm

    “be ready” does not authorize breaking the law.

  • [61] October 22, 2014 at 1:28pm

    If you checkout the “brandishing” law, you will see that police are NOT excluded from this law, therefore, if anyone POINTS a firearm at a person, or in any manner that would cause someone to be in immediate fear of their life, that person infringes upon the law. “Spotter roll” or not, he pointed a firearm at a person – illegal.

    The state cannot cause a person to be in immediate resonable fear of their life. Just like a regular citizen – no exception. Besides, you never point your firearm until you a ready and willing to fire at what yo8u are pointing at.

    Responses (16) +
  • [2] October 21, 2014 at 1:42pm

    @jungle J,

    For an answer, start by reading the Torah and the Gospels. Then follow-through with much prayer and suplication, followed by worship and praising.

  • [24] October 21, 2014 at 10:53am

    I don’t think that they have Patrick Henry in this for I am much more akin to him. Try everday to become more Christ like.

    -”The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

    -”They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.”

    -“I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

    -“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?”

    -“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 3:15pm


    Your understanding of the bible is clearly weak – re: “slavery”.

    FYI: There are two different definitions of slavery, the Holy Bible uses both. Hint, if you work for another person or company, you ARE a slave – as per the Bible.

  • [-3] October 18, 2014 at 7:07pm

    I never said that the citizen was “pure”, I said that he deserves an impartial review of the shooting, without the state’s intervention as the state is on the hook for the officers action. I am pointed to the very clear fact that the state has a vested interest in proving the officers actions where justified. Therefore the state cannot be trusted in being a neutral third party in order to vindicate the officers actions or prove the officers actions where illegal.
    I do not believe that any person who consumes a drug, in of itself, deserves death. If you do, then you would have to kill Ben Franklin.

    So, are you stating that with all the recent shootings by LEO that my scenario is not possible, nor probable?

  • [-1] October 18, 2014 at 7:00pm


    What you “viewed” was a picture with a statement made by LEO of a “plausible” action. What you do not have is PROOF that the ACTUAL act took place in the way that the “released” picture shows.

    “The guy was on meds and had a knife so he must have lounged at the officer, just like the officer said. So the officer was justified in killing the deranged person”.

  • October 18, 2014 at 6:55pm


    “Brown did have a juvy record…” – Source?
    “he did just commit strong arm robbery.” – alleged
    “he did strike the cop” – I would as well if an officer touched me for no reason – that is my right as a citizen. Besides, this is alleged as well.

    “Outstanding Officer” – So?

    “risked his life for the safety” – Nope, sorry, that is NOT the job of LEO. There ONLY right of use of force is to detain upon RS or arrest under PC. They have no right nor duty to protect anyone.

    “committed a crime before his run in with Officer Wilson.” – Again, allegedly. Glad to know that you are part of the lynch mob mentality, knowing that you will always be on the side of the state no matter what. I am sure that LEO appreciates your blind faith in whatever action they commit.

    Now, I can show you an “Outstanding Officer” who many people supported, just like you, who filed official police report of using lethal force against a citizen. Then a video PROVED the officer lied and murdered said citizen.

  • [-14] October 18, 2014 at 10:50am


    - Friends walking down the middle of the street in the middle of the day
    - We can assume (not absolute) that some power equipment in use (lawnmower, blower, radial saw, trimmers, ect.)
    - Kids playing
    - The friends did not hear the car approached
    - The LEO where perturbed – laid on the horn
    - LEO wanted to “teach” the friends a lesson
    - LEO caused the situation to escalate (I can shown many, recent, events where LEO has caused a situation to escalate to lethal) – “how dare citizens question me!”

    In any case, we have a productive citizen (we must assume as such since no prior record and the intent of going to collage – anything else is hearsay) that due to 1 encounter with LEO from apparently walking down the center of a residential road (I’ve done this many times myself) escalated to lethal force used. Not sure about you, but I question ANY death performed by ANY person. I do not give preference to anyone for no person deserves it when it comes to death.

    Consider this;

    - the state builds and operates “labs” controlled and in support of LEO
    - the state pays and operates prosecutors
    - the state pays and operates courts / judges under the guise of being “neutral” yet we know that everyone is considered guilty due to the mere association of ANY charge levied by the state, and thus must prove their innocents by utilizing a group of people that are regulated by the same state that is prosecuting, investigating, manipulating, and judging you.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-12] October 18, 2014 at 10:27am


    Your statement is true and can be used to discredit the officers testimony as well as the lab. Reason? Glad you asked, consider the following facts;

    - LEO is encouraged to lie to citizens (even does so in court)
    - LEO “protects their own” as it is the “us vs. them” mentality
    - FBI lab head scientist left then explained that the reason why he left was due to the lab manipulating evidence to suit the states case (several years ago)
    - Many evidence of fact of LEO shooting citizens and dogs “because they felt in fear” yet, case after case of citizens performing the same or similar action is prosecuted

    I don’t trust a liar, do you?

    Further facts;

    - The “kid” (was not a child in my book), had “0” record in a high crime, low income area (not “normal”). So, for one to attack an officer after witnessing (highly probable) many violent arrest seems unlikely, further taken info consideration that he was going to collage (not impossible, however, unlikely)

    Lets take another probable scenario;


    Responses (4) +
  • [3] October 17, 2014 at 9:17pm


    ““By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common”” – The plain language tells us that all is made clean by God. Maybe you are ignorant of the differences between “unclean” verse “clean” food for decedents of Abraham.

    “If any sex outside of marriage is wrong, then gay couples who are married are not sinning.” – what part of “what God has brought together, let no man put asunder” do you know understand? God could not bring together to of the same sex in Holy matrimony. By the way, have you calculated how many abomination where worthy of death?

    “If you want to be able to discriminate against anyone you want, then other businesses need to be able to discriminate against you and anyone they want. It’s that simple.” – I’m ok with that. Can YOU handle it?

    “As for history, I happen to have a masters degree in ancient history, so yes, I know what I’m talking about here.” – Really? Box of Cheerios does not count. Again, you do not understand how scribes functioned, nor the transfer of information from one generation to another. Not all accurate information MUST be by written word alone;

  • [5] October 17, 2014 at 7:52pm


    “Actually, there are accounts of marriage that predate the Bible,” – I take issue with that as nothing predates the Word of God. May not be written because of the way the Hebrew people transferred information (recite genealogy and staff). Have you even researched what the requirement was for the scribes of even 2,000 years ago? Give you a hint, if the last word in the scroll was wrong, they had to destroy it and start over from the beginning – no exceptions. Thats why there is almost no difference between the original scrolls of the New Testament and the versions of today. This is how we know some of the versions from 500 AD where from cults. Even the Koran references a cult version (old and new testiment) of one of these because that’s all he had at the time.

    If you are going to study and learn history, then actually look for yourself, not a TV show.

  • [5] October 17, 2014 at 7:40pm


    “Hmmm nothing in that passages mentions shellfish.” – Doesn’t specifically say pigs ether, however, that’s what it means. As for the comment “why should the ones about homosexuality still apply” – because it is in the ACT of ANY sexual act …wait for it……… outside of holy matrimony that is sin. S, you disparage and discount the Torah and Christianity. Remember that whole “inclusive” thing? …… hmmmmm…. I guess that only applies to people that agree with you.

    “If you want businesses to be able to discriminate, it must be legal to deny service to someone because they are black, or a woman, or Christian.” – What if I do not do business with anyone who is not a Christian – no exception?

123 To page: Go