Constitution speaks clearly on right to bear arms
Donald C. Tracy demonstrates an abysmal lack of knowledge in his attack on Rep. Virginia Foxx (Feb. xx letter). Space here permits only brief mention of some more obvious errors.
The Bill of Rights in our Constitution is, predominantly, a list of our protections from the government. It states what the government cannot do. Number two on this list says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It says nothing about hunting or target shooting. t says nothing about a National Guard that came into being much later and can be absorbed into the Army whenever politically expedient, as it presently is. The Second Amendment does mention a militia. The militia, then and now, consists of all able-bodied men who are armed and stand ready to defend the Constitution against all ememies foreign or domestic. In your words, “the musket warriors of 1776.” That’s me, Mr. Tracy, and millions like me. You liberals hate these facts but they have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
As for the president being a leader, are you speaking of the man who used every quasi-legal trick available to take over our health care system against the public that was, and still is, against it? Or the man who uses every public appearance to denigrate his opponents, past and present? This man constantly divides us with a steady creation of stereotypes either for or against racial, cultural, economicor social groups. It worked well for him as a street corner agitator in Chicago. Are the Republicans saying that Obama is “trying to do something against the Constitution?” Do you mean like violating the Constitution by illegally stacking the NLRB with union hacks? Or do you mean his many attempts and threats to change our laws using executive agencies, bypassing Congress, which holds this constitutional authority? Mr. Tracy, Obama seems to consider our Constitution his major impedediment in his “remaking” of our country.
— Joe Roberts
A solution ... perhaps
I have spoken out many times about my concerns over the Board of Education central office building’s ultimate location, size and cost. I have also opined that the die has been cast, and that we needed to focus on more important issues. However, the issue seems to be the gift that keeps on giving now that the city has come up with its plan to borrow eight million dollars, dollars that county sales taxes will have to repay when we need to borrow money just to render some of our schools functional, schools just as old and in worse shape than Long Street’s office building.
As I have said before, I do not denounce the city for wanting this building downtown — I only wish for proponents to be forthcoming as to why. It is obvious that the “prosperity it will bring to downtown” logic is devious at worst and hopeful thinking at best. The argument that it will be the envy of the state, and beyond, is even less creditable.
I do not believe the city’s offer of land for the building is an altruistic gift to the BOE or the education system. It is obvious to me that its persistence in getting the office building placed on South Main, at the BOE’s expense, is a crucial part of a city plan that includes the hotel and a convention center. This newest plan to obtain a loan for the BOE only adds support to my misgivings.
The final solution to the BOE saga may be for the city to finance the building out of itsr own coffers or through loans, then lease the building to the BOE. That is, if the building can be up and habitable within 18-24 months. This would allow the city to have its downtown anchor and the BOE to have a bit more flexibility in obtaining funds to address the dire capital improvements that will directly benefit our true wards, the students. It may also help salvage the city’s multimillion dollar fiber optic system.
Can you say Woodleaf?
— Chuck Hughes
Chuck Hughes serves on the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education.