LETTERS

LITTLE ROCK — Lee fought for legacy

I disagree with letter writer Justin Coussoule’s comments on Robert E. Lee. Lee’s father, Henry Lee, was a general in the Continental Army that fought for self-government and state sovereignty. Two of his uncles signed the Declaration of Independence, one of whom was also a member of the convention that drafted the U.S. Constitution and wrote the 10th Amendment, Richard Henry Lee. Even John Adams acknowledged that no family name had greater merit than the Lee family of Virginia.

James Madison wrote in his Federalist Paper #45 that explained the 10th Amendment: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Secession, by virtue of a book written by William Rawle, a federal judge from Pennsylvania, was taught at West Point where R.E. Lee was not only a cadet but the superintendent as well. According to Rawle’s knowledge of the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.

Perhaps Coussoule should explain what he knows about the principles of government this nation was founded upon that, according to his logic, the Lee family was ignorant of. Attacking Lee is attacking the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is precisely what Lee and his Confederates were fighting to preserve.

LOY MAUCH

Bismarck

Hey-it’ll create jobs!

Our new guys in Little Rock sure are creating a lot of new jobs. We are having to keep watch on all females of child-bearing age as soon as we think they might be pregnant to make sure we find out what day we can detect a heartbeat. Some may even think it is none of our business, but we will find a way or make a new law. Some may say, “If you see my ex, tell her I can’t pay any child support for the next two months because I bought two new guns at the gun show the other day.”

Guess you heard about the woman who pulled a gun in church because someone read the wrong scripture. Well, we have to be ready, for something like that could happen here. Now if we can get a few hundred guns on campus at Fayetteville, we can create even more jobs.

Remember our last Democratic president? Think of all the jobs Republicans created in Arkansas-Kenneth Starr’s guys running all over the state trying to find out how many women had sex with Bill Clinton. And how they harassed poor old Jim McDougal? Then all the time they spent trying to keep Susan McDougal in jail until she could confess? Jobs for Arkansas.

URBA REED

Batesville

Column-writing risky

The physical violence notwithstanding, I , like Bradley Gitz, enjoy a hard-hitting championship football game.

However, it would never occur to me to describe anyone who found football repugnant, too risky or in need of rule reform to protect players, and I use Mr. Gitz’s own words here, as wimps, girly-men, losers, and uncoordinated dorks.

One can only read Mr. Gitz’s column with amazement that anyone can so confuse journalism with schoolyard bullying and name-calling that would better be placed in the Voices letters.

At the bottom of Mr. Gitz’s column, we are told that he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. It’s a good thing, otherwise we should think he was still in high school.

CLEVE MAY

Little Rock

Just protecting assets

Once again Bradley Gitz has graced the Voices page with a lot of hot air and very little thought. He stated that “football at all levels is now squarely in the cross-hairs of our self appointed pleasure police.”

Wrong. According to SI.com, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was paid $29.5 million in 2012. Forbes Magazine estimated Jerry Jones’ net worth at $2.7 billion. Looks to me like the NFL officials and owners are merely protecting their assets as the first of what will be many lawsuits are filed by former players and their families.

Go check the average life span of an NFL player. The lawsuits are coming and the NFL will have to reduce the violent injuries to keep their riches, pure and simple. No self-appointed pleasure police.

Take a deep breath, Bradley.

KEVIN KELLAMS

Fayetteville

Words were offensive

Bradley Gitz’s recent column on football and “wimpy men” irked me. Yes, football is a risky, violent sport, but instead of attempting to reduce the level of violence, we should continue to develop better helmets and body pads to prevent serious injury. Nothing wrong with a good ol’ tackle, but a broken collarbone or rib doesn’t have to come with it.

My point of contention comes from Gitz categorizing people who sound an awful lot like me as “girly-men,” “wimpy” and “losers.” I’m a graduating high school senior; I’ve never played a team sport, am fairly uncoordinated, and am more than fairly dorkish. That being said, I’m also not normally the recipient of noogies at 6’2”, and am going to prom with my prom queen. And I don’t think a National Merit finalist, or a sports editor, or the president of the United States can be classified as “losers” because we didn’t play football.

In general I am opposed to violence in what is supposed to be a polite society. Football and other sports are an exception, as long as the violence stays on the field. I believe those who attack football are misguided as to the object of their ire, but when one considers the “manly” culture so eloquently expressed by Gitz, one can see their point. That culture hurts the sport by making it seem an uncivilized game for violent men. Besides, I doubt Gitz really embraces this risky culture the way he professes to.

Gitz’s labeling of those who abhor casual violence with sexist epitaphs is offensive. You have insulted my honor, sir.

STEVEN L. HULSEY

Little Rock

Telling what we need

I for one, am really tired of the people that want to tell us what we “need” as far as firearms. It’s blatantly obvious that most of them have no knowledge of firearms. And for those of you who want to argue what we should be allowed to have to hunt with, it gets even more ridiculous. Nothing in the Second Amendment has to do with hunting. Period.

Now we have Richard Snively apparently telling us that the Second Amendment does not entitle us to use firearms to protect ourselves or our property. We can use them only “for the security of our country.” Really? Do you really expect us to believe that? Maybe Snively should do his homework before telling the rest of us what our rights are or are not. As recently as 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Snively also seems to think the amendment referred to arms available at that time. I’m sure he’s comfortable protecting his home with a “single-shot muzzle-loader”; good for him. I think much more of my home and my family; I will use something significantly more capable of getting the job done.

GEORGE WEEKS

Centerton