We should choose where homeless stay

I see police officers on a daily basis responding to the homeless crisis, sometimes five officers at a time. I have yet to see a fire in Chinatown, but we have fire trucks and ambulances racing in and out of Chinatown, sirens screaming day and night, responding to homeless people hurting themselves and each other. I’ve seen more casts and bandages on the homeless than any ski resort.

On top of all this, the city, businesses and residents spend a lot of time and money cleaning up and repairing the damage caused by the homeless. Therefore, I believe we have the most expensive homeless crisis in the nation. I pay $625 per month for a room, but I bet it costs more than that to keep a homeless person on the sidewalk.

We should solve the homeless crisis not just out of sympathy, but for simple economics. If people want to live for free on public property, then it should be a safe and welcome public property, of our design and location.

Richard Elstner

Chinatown

—

Republicans must confront Trump

Why do our Republican representatives not speak up about this so-called president of the United States and the damage he is doing from tweeting or threatening, as well as overriding everything that our former President Barack Obama did for our nation?

I thought these elected officials were the people’s voice. However, it seems that they are more concerned about keeping their seats than speaking out against a president who is leading us to a war that no one will win.

We the people want the best for our country but, as of now, the United States is a laughingstock because of our leader. We are no longer the leader of the free world, and not the powerful nation we once were.

The Paris climate accord, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the nuclear deal with Iran and the Trans-Pacific Partnership were negotiated by past presidents. President Donald Trump acts like a very bad king, doing away with all this work.

William T. Pirtle

Waipahu

—

Second Amendment called for a militia

The Second Amendment must be understood within historical context. It was never the intent to allow every person a gun, especially a military-grade one.

The purpose lies in the oft-ignored clause in the sentence, “a well regulated militia.”

At the time of the writing and ratification of the amendment, there was no standing federal army.

Furthermore, the Founders feared that a standing federal army posed the threat of tyranny or coups.

So the right for individual states to maintain their own non-professional militia was thought to be needed.

We surpassed that need more than 100 years ago.

There can be a new lawsuit that challenges the decision of the hypocritically activist Supreme Court and Justices Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. But with the current composition of the court, the same outcome would be likely.

Carl Campagna

Kamehameha Heights