Praise for city van driver for safety action

Kudos to the driver of a city of Tucson van who stopped at Golf Links and Wilmot at 8 a.m. Saturday and put his yellow flashing lights on to protect a "fresh" two-car accident in the median. There were no police or fire vehicles on scene yet.

City and county departments have been recently defrauded by individuals, and it is good to see one city employee using his or her head to keep our streets safe while waiting for a (hopefully) quick police response. I could not tell the gender of the van driver.

Ken Unwin

Retired federal worker, Tucson

2nd Amendment can handle safety limits

I am not a gun owner, but I understand that we have a Second Amendment that guarantees the right to own weapons. I can also understand why some people might want a pistol for protection or a rifle to hunt. I don't understand why someone needs an assault weapon, and I do know that assault weapons have proven to be a danger to society.

We have a First Amendment that guarantees free speech. However, we also have laws that protect us from abuse of free speech. You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded room. You cannot slander another person publicly.

I sometimes would love to drive my car 100 mph on the freeway. We have the right to drive a car, but we also have laws that restrict the speed that we must go when we are driving.

So why not the same for the Second Amendment? Assault weapons and large-capacity ammo clips have the capacity to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time in a crowd.

Assault weapons are not necessary for safety or hunting.

Just as we can pass laws for safety with the First Amendment, why not pass laws for safety with the Second Amendment?

Linda Horowitz

Retired physical therapist, Tucson

TUSD board clearly endorsed deseg plan

Several Star articles, on Dec. 12 and 13 and Jan. 6, concerning the Dec. 11 meeting of the Tucson Unified School District's Governing Board could perpetuate misunderstandings concerning the board's vote on the proposed desegregation plan.

Despite individual board members' concerns about specific issues, the board voted unanimously to endorse the plan, subject to several formal objections.

The adopted motion, in particular, did not merely leave in place but explicitly endorsed the objection that TUSD's counsel filed with the District Court on Nov. 9, which stated in part: "(TUSD) next objects to the requirement ... that the District 'develop and implement culturally relevant courses of instruction designed to reflect the history, experiences, and culture of African American and Latino communities.'"

Any attempt to withdraw this objection would have required an explicit motion to do so, and no such motion was even offered in December. The board's intent is completely clear.

Mark Stegeman

TUSD Governing Board member

Debt-ceiling story was misleading

Re: the Jan. 8 article "Report: Standoff on debt ceiling could cost taxpayers, elderly."

Shame on you!

I am offended that you chose to publish this article as news. The words "Social Security recipients" caught my attention.

I looked for a source of the information in the article and could not find one.

I went to the original article at McClatchy Washington Bureau. It is titled, "If debt ceiling deal fails, U.S. could delay tax refunds" and includes nine additional paragraphs that address only the hypothetical delay of tax refunds. The reporter has no reference for the dramatic statements he wrote regarding the government not paying Social Security benefits.

As editor, you have allowed the focus of the original report to be twisted in a way that may mislead many of our Tucson-area Social Security beneficiaries and cause them to worry about their welfare. I find this unconscionable. Shame on you!

Marianne Milczarek

Federal employee, Oro Valley