Peter Frampton @peterframpton
Peter Frampton @peterframpton
Thanks, I will add Peter Frampton to the list of celebrities who know it all.
It ain't the guns;
it's the schools' lack of security.
Did you notice that in courthouses, they have metal detection?
That's because they don't want their precious judges to get shot.
But we don't do the same thing at schools because....
we need money for Ukraine or something stupid like that?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
It ain't the guns; it's the schools' lack of security.
Did you notice
that in courthouses, they have metal detection? That's because they
don't want their precious judges to get shot. But we don't do the same thing at schools because....
we need money for Ukraine or something
stupid like that?
It ain't the guns; it's the schools' lack of security.
And the fact that they are "gun free zones". These ignorant elistists ignore basic facts that go against their Narrative. Facts like
that in courthouses, they have metal detection? That's because they don't want their precious judges to get shot. But we don't do the sam thing at schools because....
We used to in some high crime schools.
But I think we stopped because of "racism" or the fact that it was making schools seem more like the prisons that they were becomming.
Biden fits into that category. He's got thick security wrapped around him, while kids in public schools don't. Then he's got the audacity to say that "Republicans are the problem because they won't ban guns."
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Biden fits into that category. He's got thick security wrapped around
him, while kids in public schools don't. Then he's got the audacity to
say that "Republicans are the problem because they won't ban guns."
My city's high school used to enforce metal detection but they stopped.
It irritates me; what sense does it make to stop doing it?
I'd like to tell anyone using that "prisonlike" argument that it's even more "prisonlike" to force kids to go to school with inadequate
security.
Biden fits into that category. He's got thick security wrapped around him,
while kids in public schools don't. Then he's got the audacity to say that
"Republicans are the problem because they won't ban guns."
His reaction to questions regarding the Nashville shooting was to crack a joke.
President has renewed his call for gun control.
Noting who, or what, the problem is.
He will not stop until he gets what he wants.
No matter how long, or how often, Republicans object.
Biden fits into that category. He's got thick security wrapped around hi while kids in public schools don't. Then he's got the audacity to say th "Republicans are the problem because they won't ban guns."
His reaction to questions regarding the Nashville shooting was to crack a joke.
coming in with innocent metal things just to hold up the line. "Sorry
I'm late. Some kid bought in a bunch of salad spoons."
I agree. But the Elitists don't want school security. If they did,
they would eliminate "gun free zones" and allow teachers to carry concealed.
It ain't the guns;
Yes, it is. Which is why guns should be banned. Especially guns that
kill people. Such as assault-style AR-15 guns, easily handled by those will little or no experience.
Did you notice that in courthouses, they have metal detection?
Did that stop any of the insurrectionists of January 6 from doing
their thing? Nope. Did that save the lives of any of the 5 adults who
were killed on that fateful day? Nope. Did that stop the POTUS from inciting the riot that occurred? Nope.
Had assault-style weapons been banned, the nutcase who murdered six
people most likely would not have been able to legally purchase any of
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I would be cautious about trusting people in charge if they are
dismissing metal detectors for reasons like those.
If it works in courts or at airports, it can work anywhere.
I get that. "Gun Control" is a fun game for Democrats just like
"Climate Change." Fixing it would ruin all their fun. Now is a perfect time for Republicans in congress to draft a bill for security in public schools, and they can call it "gun control" to put in the Democrats
faces.
But is our wonderful GOP house just full of dim witted career opportunists? Maybe more worried about the next 2 years that about anything else?
The security sucked. They should have shot all those "insurrectionists."
But they weren't interested in security. They were interested in
creating a Narrative.
A ban will slightly reducde the probability, but to fix the problem completely, we need the metal detectors and 2 armed officers at every school.
And armed teachers (since the "security officer" at Stoneman Douglas High School just ran away when a shooter entered).
On 04-05-23 09:37, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Ron L. about Re: Frampton Comes Alive <=-
And armed teachers (since the "security officer" at Stoneman Douglas High School just ran away when a shooter entered).
Yea I don't want just a couple dopes from Securitas, I want
real armed police officers. It's gonna be expensive, but
it's either that or it's surrender to
the school shooters.
Yea I don't want just a couple dopes from Securitas, I want
real armed police officers. It's gonna be expensive, but
it's either that or it's surrender to
the school shooters.
It would help if we could ban the AR style rifles that are the weapons
of choice for mass murder (and not much else).
On 04-06-23 20:41, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Frampton Comes Alive <=-
Yea I don't want just a couple dopes from Securitas, I want
real armed police officers. It's gonna be expensive, but
it's either that or it's surrender to
the school shooters.
It would help if we could ban the AR style rifles that are the weapons
of choice for mass murder (and not much else).
A gun is a gun. They're all deadly. Do you want to cut down
on the number of school shootings, or do you want to stop
school shootings altogether?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dale Shipp <=-
A gun is a gun. They're all deadly. Do you want to cut down on the
number of school shootings, or do you want to stop school shootings altogether?
It ain't the guns;
Yes, it is. Which is why guns should be banned. Especially guns thatthose
kill people. Such as assault-style AR-15 guns, easily handled by
will little or no experience.
Despite being "banned," opioids continue to kill people.
Did you notice that in courthouses, they have metal detection?
Did that stop any of the insurrectionists of January 6 from doing
their thing? Nope. Did that save the lives of any of the 5 adults who
were killed on that fateful day? Nope. Did that stop the POTUS from
inciting the riot that occurred? Nope.
The security sucked. They should have shot all those "insurrectionists."
Had assault-style weapons been banned, the nutcase who murdered six
people most likely would not have been able to legally purchase any of
A ban will slightly reducde the probability,
but to fix the problem completely, we need the metal detectors and 2 armed officers at every school.
And armed teachers (since the "security officer" at Stoneman DouglasHigh
School just ran away when a shooter entered).
Armed teachers is a non starter.
Yea I don't want just a couple dopes from Securitas, I want
real armed police officers. It's gonna be expensive, but
it's either that or it's surrender to
the school shooters.
It would help if we could ban the AR style rifles that are the weapons
of choice for mass murder (and not much else).
A gun is a gun. They're all deadly. Do you want to cut down
on the number of school shootings, or do you want to stop
school shootings altogether?
Both, if possible. Plus cut down on the deadly effects of using an AR15.
In the clown world of the Ignorant Elitists criminals obey laws (even though any 3 year old knows that's absurd) and that if no one (except
the "correct" people) have guns, then no one will get hurt. Even though there are hundreds of other ways to do mass killings.
Despite being "banned," opioids continue to kill people.
Easy access to guns is the main cause of people dying needlessly.
A ban will slightly reducde the probability,
The probability would become virtually nonexistent.
GWB had plenty of warning by intelligence agencies about the dangers
of terrorists using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Yet he
Easy access to guns is the problem, and will always remain the problem, for as long as we choose to do nothing about it. What that means is
people will continue to die, needlessly, because nobody gives a shit
about human life in our sick society.
On 04-07-23 14:46, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Frampton Comes Alive <=-
A gun is a gun. They're all deadly. Do you want to cut down
on the number of school shootings, or do you want to stop
school shootings altogether?
Both, if possible. Plus cut down on the deadly effects of using an AR15.
I've probably said this before, but fentanyl is deadly, and
it's already banned, yet it still kills people.
We could do the same thing with AR15s. They're deadly,
we'll ban them, and they'll still kill people.
How about tougher security in schools? Or how about home schooling?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I suspect that some people are addicted to the media,
and deep down,
subconsciously, they're even addicted to these school shooting stories.
If we eliminate school shootings, then television viewers are gonna
lose their erections. But if we curb the shootings, they're still gonna have lots of "enjoyable" stories to read.
Despite being "banned," opioids continue to kill people.
Easy access to guns is the main cause of people dying needlessly.
We've already tried controlling access, and it didn't work.
The definition of insanity is to keep trying it some more.
A ban will slightly reducde the probability,
The probability would become virtually nonexistent.
We need to make the POSSIBILITY nonexistent.
GWB had plenty of warning by intelligence agencies about the dangers
of terrorists using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Yet he
Yea but warnings aren't what we need.
We need metal detection and armed officers at each and every school.
Easy access to guns is the problem, and will always remain the problem,
for as long as we choose to do nothing about it. What that means is
people will continue to die, needlessly, because nobody gives a shit
about human life in our sick society.
You're 1/2 right.
But the real fix involves taking away from of the American taxpayers' hard-earned cash away from Democrats/Zelensky and investing it in school security.
On 04-08-23 08:27, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: Frampton Comes Alive <=-
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I suspect that some people are addicted to the media,
They have been trained to only accept the Propaganda Ministry...er..
media as the only source of truth.
Their whole thinking process is based on feelings/emotions. Drama is candy to them.
On 04-08-23 08:27, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: Frampton Comes Alive <=-
I've probably said this before, but fentanyl is deadly, and it's
already banned, yet it still kills people.
And we tried banning alcohol - which kills people too - and ended up
with even more people getting killed.
It would kill a lot more if it were legal and widely distributed. The fact that it is illegal and that those who distribute it are prosecuted goes a long way to reducing such deaths.
We could do the same thing with AR15s. They're deadly,
we'll ban them, and they'll still kill people.
It has been proven that if they are banned, then fewer people are killed by mass shootings.
How about tougher security in schools? Or how about home schooling?
Tougher security in schools would help, but it would come at a cost.
Home schooling is not for everyone. Can you teach your children basic
have lots of "enjoyable" stories to read.
More like if we eliminate school shootings, they won't have much to exploit for their "gun control" Narrative.
Tougher security would mean having to spend more school budget on competent school security (as opposed to the kind that just run out of
the school when a shooter is present) and that would mean they would
have less to indoctrinate our kids.
We need metal detection and armed officers at each and every school.
The school in Nashville had a "gun free zone" - and yet a mass shooting still occurred. The only reason more adults and children were not killed was because of the quick action of law enforcement - which killed the shooter dead within seconds of arriving at the school.
The shooter had two semi-automaticn weapons - both bought legally -
which were used to kill six people, three of them children. These
weapons are made for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill
people. Now you tell me, what other gun would you like to be shot
with?
But the real fix involves taking away from of the American taxpayers' hard-earned cash away from Democrats/Zelensky and investing it in sch security.
Raising the white flag to an indicted fugitive (Putin) is not what
this country does, or is all about.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Good point! There's no valid excuse for not bolstering security in
schools immediately. Watch those slithering leftists squirm away from
the podium when people start demanding it. You know they will!
It has been proven that if they are banned, then fewer people are kil by mass shootings.
Proven by hypothetical statistics?
John Lott, Jr. has already debunked all the gun control narratives and
his books are quite readable.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I think lower-level-leftists will defend the "costs too much to save
kids" narrative on behalf of the higher-level-leftists.
When they say
stuff like that, it gives BIG spenders like Joe Biden & Joe Manchin the wiggle room they need to scamper off with the jackpot.
| Sysop: | Xerxes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Azle, Texas |
| Users: | 119 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 134:34:19 |
| Calls: | 3,027 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 156 |
| U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,113 |
| Posted today: | 0 |
