Activists rally to support right to bear arms

By Bane Okholm | Jan 08, 2013
Photo by: Bane Okholm

Rockland — From left, Richard Ward of Rockland, Ashlea Tyler of Rockland, and Sharon Corbett of Camden solicit honks of support from traffic at the corner of Park and Main Streets in Rockland Jan. 5.

Ward, the rally's organizer and a target and sport shooter said he wanted "to show support for gun rights," while Tyler expressed concern over the potential banning of hunting weapons.

Corbett, who described herself as "very involved with political conditions right now," said she was worried about the potential for firearm regulation similar to that of Russia.

"There's just too much going on that people don't know about," Corbett said. "You cannot give up your guns."

Comments (15)
Posted by: Frank Long | Jan 10, 2013 22:48
Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Jan 10, 2013 10:59

With the large amount of home invasions I believe every homeowner should have a gun after being trained how to use and keep it safely.

Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Jan 10, 2013 07:49

Am looking forward to positive results from the meeting between Joe Biden and the NRA. Am believing they will come up with an equitable solution. Working together still is the best way to stop the attitude that leads to violence in the first place. Hope we all give them both a chance.

Posted by: Michelle Paulsen | Jan 10, 2013 07:01

First I would like to say that I would have attended such a rally if I had know about it. Now Cindy to answer your question, the issue  is not as simple as the question you posed, as sad as it is to say, the government wants to take advantage of the Sandy Hook tragedy while it still hurts everyone to think about it. They are trying to impose wide sweepy legislation and the devil is in the wording of the legislation. It is not just the assult type weapons that (you are pituring) it is all semi-automatic gun.  It is the rights that they want to take from gun owners. Like you can not sell any of your guns that you legaly own and paid for, you can not give or  leave them to anyone in your family they must be forfitted to the government when you die, for those of us who have all ready participated in the background checks, we know have to go and be finger printed, photographed and  re-register our guns as well as pay a 200.00 fee on each gun we already own. This gun ban contains much more than can be covered here. Do you realize the Preseident is threatening to pass this legislation by executive decission and  not only take it out of the hande of the Congress but out of the hands of the voters. The thing people need to realize is that it is not about the guns it is about a government that is taking it upon themselves to take away your rights as an American. The constitution is about so much more then guns. What if they wanted to take away the 1st amendment (Freedom of Speach) would you be okay with that? We would not even be having this conversation if that were the case. Please everyone look deep into this get the facts and realize that next they will come it will be for something important to you. The way the government is approching this issue is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written. So that the people would be armed in ored to stand up against a corrupt government. Look around you at the state of our lives there is a reason they want to disarm us, and I am sad to say it is not because of all those precious children we just lost.

Typing in the dark hope this is redable.


Posted by: Valerie Wass | Jan 09, 2013 19:35

It isn't a problem of taking guns away from law abiding people.  It's the illegal selling of guns all over the country.  There is alot of money to be made in guns shows and many laws are broken or just aren't policed.

Posted by: Cindy Gerry | Jan 08, 2013 20:41

Mr. Grinnell,    I am a veteran, having served in the Air Force as an airborne Arabic linguist.  I am also an expert marksman in hand guns semi and  automatic weapons rifles.  We had to break down and reassemble our weapons, but thanks for the girly explanation of how they work.  What you do is draw a line SOMEWHERE!

Posted by: Frank Long | Jan 08, 2013 20:40

Oops, my bad. Right after the reporter left, Cathy Cooper joined us for a while and contributed to the energetic dialogue. Five doesn't quite a rally make; more like a jazz combo, ...... but the audience loved us.

Posted by: Frank Long | Jan 08, 2013 20:18

To his credit, it was Richard who started the rally.  For a young man, he should be congratulated for taking such a mature stance on such a controversial topic. Interesting, though, I was the fourth and probably the more long-winded of all the attendees with the reporter that afternoon. (It didn't seem like all that tough of an assignment.)

And while four attendees may not seem to amount to much, the 90% positive responses we received by passersby that day certainly reflected the supportive tone of the local population.

At least some people had been paying attention in history class.


Posted by: Jeff Grinnell | Jan 08, 2013 20:14

Ms. Gerry, The problem is the definition of "assault and automatic" weapons. A automatic weapon is defined as a weapon that once the trigger is pulled once, it will continue to fire rounds until the trigger is released. This is not the style of weapon that was used in ANY of the recent shootings. There are many many laws on the books right now that govern those types of weapons. The type of weapons that have been used are Semi-Automatic, where each time the trigger is pulled a round goes off. Now is the problem. There are many types of weapons that are commnaly used for recreation, hunting, and self deffense that fall into that catagory. When people think assault rifle, they look at the extierior so they visualize a black carbon based body "M16/4". The problem in banning that gun, is that the action (the inner workings) are essentially the same as a wood and metal traditional hunting rifle used once a twice a year. Both types supply the rounds into the weapon in what is called a clip which holds the ammunition. Both types can have a all black frame or the traditional wood and steel. And both when used for illlegal means can do horrible wrong, but both can also be used for positve manner.  So I ask you, what is YOUR defintion of a assault weapon??

Posted by: DANIEL DATES | Jan 08, 2013 14:12

Where does it stop tho Cindy? So you limit access to certain guns and clips, then there will be another shooting, with A different caliber of gun, and people once again will be running on the " emotion of the situation " and the next thing you know they will be wanting to banning that weapon as well. We already have A ton of laws on the books about gun control, unfortunately, a lot of people only get there information from the main stream media,( which has its own agenda to push) doesn't confront the real issue here, there hasn't been A single story from the media about what psychiatric medications Adam Lanza was on, the media just tells us what he used for weapons, and if you keep researching these mass killings, there has never been A story about any of the medications Cho Seung-Hui was on ( Virgina Tech) Eric Harris ( Columbine) Andrea Yates ( who drowned her children) NOTE.. no weapon used. Even John Hinkley JR, were all on some kind of anti-depressant or psychiatric medication.The media just keeps telling us that none of this ever would have happened if it hadn't been for the bad guns, while avoiding the real stats of what guns have prevented, There was no coverage of the women in Loganville GA who shoot an intruder 5 times protecting herself and her 9 year old twins, after he broke into there house to rob and intent to harm her, ( and the intruder had 4 other arrests since 2008) why wasn't that A lead story on the evening news? What would have happened if she hadn't had A gun? Should she have just stripped off her clothing and made it easier for the perp to harm her and her little one's? Lets take the "emotion" out of the conversation, and ask the media to show us the real facts, or better yet, do the leg work yourself and become informed instead of acting on "feelings" Do some research and find out what happens when Country's do ban guns, lets stop listing to people like Diane Feinstien, who says that she wants to ban guns yet, has A concealed carry license herself with several armed guards around her at all times ( is she better then you or I ?) History has A nasty little way of repeating its self, when it is forgotten.

Posted by: Cindy Gerry | Jan 08, 2013 13:48

I repeat..Why do people think that limiting access to certain assault and automatic weapons means that everyone will lose their guns?  As far as the fascist comment..WHAT?  And I had to laugh that 3 people on a street corner comprises a rally.


Posted by: Barbara Favicchia | Jan 08, 2013 12:35

So only three people attended the "rally"?

Posted by: Edwin Ecker | Jan 08, 2013 12:17

Every civilization that banded guns (or any lethal weapons)from the population fell to fascists in a very short time !

Posted by: Wilber Eugene Roman Sr. | Jan 08, 2013 11:23

It's like the old Russian way and how they worked and still do. They believed in the "two steps forward,and one step backwards".It is getting to be the same thing here,and don't tell me that if I don't like it to leave.As far as the ability to kill,a 22 can kill just as fast as any other weapon so does that mean they should be outlawed also.There are some people that believe that the only ones that should have any kind of weapon is the military or law enforcement,and I can't help but think that that kind of person is a special kind of stupid.One more thing before I send this.....I am all for deporting Piers Morgan for his stupid remarks and his stand on gun control.What a jerk............

Posted by: Cindy Gerry | Jan 08, 2013 10:19

Why do these people think that limiting access to certain weapons of mass murder means that they will lose their precious guns?  I just don't get it.


If you wish to comment, please login.