To the Editor:

In response to George Cohan’s letter to The Ridgefield Press January 11, 2018 “common sense” is the latest code word from Mayor Bloomberg, The Brady Campaign and friends to describe new restrictions on firearms.

Some things are best left unsaid, Representative Elizabeth Esty tells you why, at least in terms of the gun debate. Esty told audience members at a Pride Fund event, (June 7, 2017) “to always sub in “gun safety” for “gun control” lest you lose the support of 15% of men. Believe me, in the U.S. Congress, we can’t afford to lose 15% of any constituency, much less a little less than half of the public,” she said.

In my opinion, Representative Esty, her supporters and the party believe the “end” justifies any means, conceal the real agenda as it relates to firearms.

George states “what appears to be a growing crisis involving gun purchases, ownership and use?” What crisis, are referring to the USAF’s decision as a policy matter not to report “discharges” that disqualify an individual from purchasing or owning a firearm that falls directly on the chain of command, not some E-5.

If you are referring to an internet sales crisis, there isn’t any, obtain a copy of “Internet Firearm Sales — ATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Cover Testing” November 2017 A Report to Congressional Requesters. The Report was requested Senators Warren, Schatz and Representative Cummings.

George states “any limitations has to be fair, effective and sensible.” How did you get from Justice Scalia’s opinion to new limitations? There are more than 10,000 laws that relate specifically to firearms in the United States now.

Go to: https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm for Connecticut’s list.

Wordsmithing aside, in my opinion your Party goal remains the same, a ban on all private ownership of firearms.

Joseph J. Trench    

Ascot Way, Jan. 12