Letter: Protected freedoms

Thursday, February 22, 2018
Protected freedoms

To the editor:

In attempts to better protect our freedoms, the White House and military leaders have proposed an increase in the military budget. Apparently, they think the Taliban, ISIS and other less-well-trained, equipped and financed forces threaten our freedoms. Additionally, the president believes increased immigration by certain groups of people constitutes a threat.

High on my list of freedoms is to be free from the threat of a nuclear disaster as well as the threat of peril in public places brought about by citizens shooting fellow citizens. There is no chance for liberty or the pursuit of happiness without life and that needs to be ensured and free from threats.

So, I don’t think an increased military budget better protects my freedoms because it doesn’t address the threats to life. In fact, recent suggestions of increasing our nuclear arsenal further raise the chance of a holocaust. Neither the president nor the military leaders are listening. What needs to be addressed is nuclear disarmament and gun restriction. Most of us are subject to go “off the rails” during some critical times in our lives, and for that reason we should restrict access to lethal weapons. It is not the people that need to be controlled; it is the weapon, whether it is a nuclear bomb or a gun! Nuclear disarmament will free us from the caprice of volatile leaders while gun restriction will provide confidence in the safety of public places.

The suggestion of a good guy and a bad guy confronting each other with guns as a way of preventing violence in public places only appeals to a wild west, macho mentality and is unrealistic. The killers in Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Plainfield, etc. didn’t notify the good guy of the time and place of any gunfight appointment!

Frank Meneghini