Columnist wrong on gun possession
In your Sunday newspaper, David Magee, commentator, writes that Rep. Stacey Campfield’s bill concerning UT’s policy of disallowing possession of a gun by a team player is a waste of time. He states the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of possession.
No one supports gun violence. Guns are prohibited on campus. Mike Hamilton, UT athletic director, stated that “gun possession by team players — legal or not — would be denied in the future.” That put Mike Hamilton in the position of dictator of the lives of UT athletes, in my opinion.
But the problem is David Magee. Apparently, he never noticed that gun possession of any kind was prohibited in Washington, D.C., until the Supreme Court struck it down last year. The court is now considering the same type of gun possession laws in Chicago with the likelihood of the same verdict. So, Mr. Magee, when you say “the Second Amendment gets in the way of such action,” you are incorrect. I wish you were correct! But you are the one who is “off target.”
Rep. Campfield is to be commended for highlighting what the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen.
He’s right “on target.”
DONALD R. CASH
Ooltewah
Earmarks describe a ‘Favor Factory’
Lost in the headlines of Nancy Pelosi’s drive to take over our health care system this weekend was a great editorial in the Chattanooga Free Press (March 21) on the subject of earmarks.
With our growing debt, earmarks represent one way in which career politicians have failed in their duty to be responsible stewards of your tax money. In their disregard for the long-term economic health of our nation in favor of short-term political gain, members of Congress have created the “Favor Factory” mentality of earmark spending, a term created by convicted criminal Jack Abramoff to describe his method of funneling contributions to politicians to get projects funded for his clients through earmarks.
I could not agree more with the position of the Free Press on this issue. While politicians talk about addressing the structural problems with Washington business-as-usual, they continue to feed at the trough of government earmarks. Vital projects should be funded on merit, not through political payoff.
I believe we must tackle these reforms head-on and not flinch from the tough choices. Until we send representatives to deal honestly with these issues and seriously work for reform, the problems we face will continue to grow.
ROBIN SMITH
Hixson
Spelling important to prepare for life
The importance of spelling is very great, and it seems that some schools care to disagree. This past weekend, I participated in the Chattanooga Times Free Press spelling bee and placed 15 out of 100.
Schools should never drop spelling from their classes because if a generation of kids goes all through school without spelling, then they will definitely not be prepared when they go to a job offer or apply to a university.
People should not always have to rely on spell-check on a computer or iPhone, but instead be able to spell without using spell-check.
I think that any kids who go through school without spelling would be at a severe disadvantage later in life.
Those schools should be ashamed for wanting to cut spelling from their class schedules because they may be saving some money off their budget, but they are paying for it by kids not getting accepted for jobs or for a college.
I would also like to thank Mr. Garry Grimes and the Chattanooga Times Free Press for sponsoring the regional spelling bee.
ALEX HARALSON
7th Grade
McCallie School
Reform opposition obscures reasons
The March 18 editorial opposing health care reform claims that we cannot afford it. Yet it neither examines facts nor weighs costs and benefits. It ignores costs of the current system, including expensive emergency room visits by the uninsured (often paid for by taxpayers or the soon-to-be bankrupt). It ignores terrible insurance company practices, such as revoking policies of sick people. It raises the specter of higher taxes while ignoring the bill’s provisions to ease health costs for most Americans.
Those who are opposed to something often argue that “we cannot afford it” instead of defending their real reasons. One of the editor’s real reasons is opposition to “socialized medicine.” This is a scare phrase for the idea of spreading health care costs across society, with the healthier and wealthier paying part of the costs for everyone else. As a Christian, I embrace this idea. So do many of my non-Christian friends, both wealthy and otherwise.
The editors’ opposition is also based on complete faith in the free market and distrust of the federal government. What did they have to say when the federal government spotlighted the risks of smoking while tobacco companies lied about these risks?
BETSY DARKEN
Extra tax required on prepaid funeral
This letter is regarding the prepaid funeral my father had made several years ago with a local funeral home.
He thought he had made all the final plans with them, and when he died this past December we were told that we had to pay taxes on it again.
These taxes were paid when my father first purchased this prepaid burial and I thought that this would be the end of it and I would not have to worry about anymore monies. But when I went to the funeral home I was told that I had to pay taxes again for something that had taxes paid when the plan was paid for. I had to pay for them again before he was interred. I did not know why I had to pay taxes twice. When I asked about it, I was told that taxes had to be paid. This explanation does not seem ethical. We did not purchase anything else from the local funeral home to have to pay taxes again.
If anyone has made prepaid funeral arrangements please be advised that you will have to pay taxes again for this service.
ANGELA HARTLEY
Lawrenceville, Ga.