In “NC’s GOP legislators are back for more punishing of the poor“ (May 25), my colleague Gene Nichol criticized the GOP-controlled General Assembly for enacting legislation over the past few years that has reduced welfare spending.
I respect Gene’s point of view. Gene has devoted himself to fighting poverty, and he sees those laws as hurting those in need. But I don’t agree with his view that members of the General Assembly aim to punish the poor.
The Republican members that I have met since moving to North Carolina do not want anyone to suffer. They simply have a different view of how best to help the poor and others who are disadvantaged. They believe that, instead of providing welfare benefits to those in need, we should devote resources to increasing jobs and bolstering the economy, because in the long run a stronger economy will more effectively combat poverty than welfare will.
One can disagree with those premises. But one should not impute evil intent to others simply because they hold those contrary views. Politicians must make choices because resources are finite. Budget choices will always disappoint someone. But we shouldn’t call the choices that disappoint us immoral.
Professor of Law, UNC-Chapel Hill
Regarding “NFL will require players who are on field to ‘stand and show respect’ for flag” (May 23): Isn’t it a sad day when the leader of the free world, charged with protecting the democracy, is the very instrument altering First Amendment rights.
Trump continues wielding the power of his office for personal crusades. Although I’m not an NFL or football fan, Trump has no right to pressure the players. And, shame on Roger Goodell for capitulating and not consulting the players.
Until now, our country tolerated differing views, but no longer. All Americans have an opinion about taking a knee; however, exercising our First Amendment rights belongs to everyone, and until today no president has attempted to change it. It’s not disrespectful to take a knee, it’s a right many countries do not have, and the president’s responsibility is to protect this right.
Regarding “Here’s our best defense against school gun violence in NC” (May 21): Violence in America comes from the same place as every nation: mental illness. Violence in America is just more fatal than anywhere else, and it’s because of our guns. We have so many firearms in circulation and they need to be reduced. As Barnett points out, we have roughly 300 million firearms, 42 percent of global private firearm use.
However, it’s unrealistic to believe we could ever put a dent into this number through buybacks and restricting gun use. Less than a fifth of gun violence is committed with guns acquired legally. So our issue should not be people turning in guns, it should be curbing the black market and under the table trade of firearms.
With school shootings, we have a bigger issue. When a mentally-ill child decides to go and grab his father’s gun out of the family closet, innocent people will die. Barnett briefly mentions how these parents should be fined, but there needs to be more incentive. Instead of mass media giving shooters attention, this time should be devoted to telling parents how to prevent this.
We as Americans and North Carolinians can’t ignore the issue. We may not be able to stop those when they acquire a firearm, but maybe let’s prevent these thoughts. Bullying is consistent verbal abuse now, and some kids can’t handle it forever.
Our government seems to enjoy watching Americans riot; it seems to be entertainment for them. But when we start making their lives difficult, we’ll get change. Gun violence is America a mental health issue, and when we easily provide the tools for this violence to be consistently fatal, mass shootings become monthly, weekly, and daily.