Letter: Cohan’s ‘reasonable proposals’ on guns are unreasonable

To the Editor:

In response to George Cohan’s Jan. 25 letter, you can practice free speech if you are not at Columbia University, ask General Petraeus.

George, as you know, your “reasonable proposals” on semi-automatic rifles and magazines are the keystones of Sen. Feinstein’s Bill S-2095-Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 introduced in 2017.

Appearance does not make the AR-15 a military firearm; functionally, it’s a semi-automatic rifle. Ruger Firearms website links are for three firearms which function as semi-automatic rifles firing center cartridges:  

Only the AR-556 is banned in Bill S-2095 and Connecticut because the party line “… it’s a military-style rifle and no civilians should be allowed to own them …” Cosmetics over actual functionality, fiction over facts.

I support background checks on all retail sales of firearms provided all organizations required to report data to NICS do so starting with the USAF; Connecticut’s Public Health Department, et al and the system receives the necessary “fixes;” continues to be used solely for its original purpose.

I support Clay Shooting Sports on college campus like Duke, Illinois, Yale, USMA where the programs are “club” sports so I think your “reasonable” proposal is unreasonable.  

George, as you know federal law 18U.S.C. 922(g) already bans, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or subject to a domestic violence protective order, from firearm ownership and possession of ammunition. In addition, there are two similar Connecticut laws.

A Delphi survey of firearm owners indicates everyone would report a stolen firearm, obtain a police report and file an insurance claim.

George, your party, The Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center have the same agenda since 1974: Ban the civilian ownership of firearms.

Joseph J. Trench

Ascot Way, Feb. 5