Second Amendment rally Jan. 5 set for Rockland

Jan 02, 2013

Rockland — On Saturday, Jan. 5, there will be a pro Second Amendment rally from noon to 2 p.m. in the public park beside Rite Aid at the corner of Park and Main streets in Rockland.

Comments (16)
Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Jan 06, 2013 06:50

Hopefully, we will be able to work together for a solution where neither side will see the other as "disgruntled curmudgeons". ;)

Posted by: Frank Long | Jan 05, 2013 22:29

The rally this afternoon was interesting. By far, there were more thumbs up of approval by the passers-by than there were disgruntled curmudgeons who were still trying trying to sort out the relevant political and historical issues, and could only respond by sticking out their tongues or other silent responses. I would have to say that 90% of the drivers that came by had indicated their support, and I'm not exaggerating.

David Rockwell has stated here that, "We do not need those weapons designed to kill peope in a civilized society." How civilized are we when our dysfunctional foreign policy refuses to acknowledge the sovereignty of countless foreign nations and millions of civilians die in the process, and if our government can't respect other nations and peoples, why should we expect them to respect the rights of their own citizens?

How civilized are we when our own culture has become so divided on so many issues that we can't even get Congress to stay focused on a Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill without burying it political pork. Yet somehow we expect that the politicians are going to have our best interests at heart. Here's a YouTube clip of a remake of the Battle of Athens, which took place in 1946, when the Cantrell political dynasty was stealing the ballot boxes:

How civilized are we, really, when the only way people at the bottom of the food chain, who have become so disenfranchised and disconnected from their own culture, communities, and families, (our societal "miners canaries") feel the only way they can communicate their feelings of separation is by taking the lives of innocent children, and people in the workplace or restaurants?

Rather than address the REAL issue at stake here, mental illness being just one of them, we can always count on people who want some quick, warm and fuzzy, feel good at the moment, solution to a problem that has far far greater implications.

Anyway, it was nice to see so many Mainers who were in support this afternoon.

Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Jan 05, 2013 16:43

I went to the rally today and it was a small but enthusiastic group waving signs and getting lots of acknowledgement from passing cars and passerby's. Defending the Constitution in even a small way is worthy of praise.

Don't take your rights for granted, people. The government is trying to appease us with a bit of money on SNAP/EBT cards or some rental assistance just to keep us quiet while our rights are eroded away. These are the same politicians who just voted themselves a raise while you and I struggle to keep a roof over our heads. It's a sad state of affairs when most Americans know that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are having a baby and most Americans can't name the Speaker of the House or know what the fiscal cliff is all about. In the case of politics, ignorance is NOT bliss.

Posted by: Ben Ellison | Jan 05, 2013 14:56

How did the rally go?  I'm still hoping someone will answer my question, please.

Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Jan 04, 2013 13:33

Why stir up the pot when Mayor Clayton; and others; have been diligently working towards drawing people together to find a solution for our local area?  Haven't we had enough divisiveness? Evidently not.

"I am very pleased at what is in place now, and that further protective actions have already been proactively considered and discussed," Clayton said in an email Dec. 22. He said he was very impressed with school officials' knowledge and willingness to work with the city. "...The city manager and I made the city's resources available for all discussion and whatever is needed to move forward."

The group plans to hold another meeting in January with school principals, school board members, police, fire chiefs, the Knox County Emergency Management Agency, Knox County Sheriff's Office and Maine State Police.


Posted by: Kathleen D Daley | Jan 04, 2013 09:51

We live in a violent obsessed society and culture.  Look at the movies, computer games, books etc., we are being brain washed into believing that violence will solve our problems.  Got a problem, any problem, someone who makes your life less than perfect, use a form violence to solve it.  There are a lot of angry people now who center on themselves.  Even here in Maine we are seeing more and more violent crimes of one kind or another.  The solution of most of the comments here is to "fix" violence by violence.  Doesn't make a bit of sense to me!  The solution is to put an end to the glorifying of violence as if it were a virtue! How have we become such an ignorant, primitive society?  Yes, we need to do more help the mentally ill, but not all those who advocate violence are mentally ill.  Some people enjoy weapons.  Makes them feel big and powerful.  Evidently without a weapon they feel inferior.  My dad, a hunter and police officer, once said no one needs an assault or even semi-automatic gun.


Kathleen Daley

Posted by: Ben Ellison | Jan 04, 2013 09:18

Richard, thank you very much for pointing out that U.S. federal lawmakers have prohibited individual Americans from owning fully automatic firearms since 1934. I think that many folks and much of the media already knew this, but It's very interesting to read about how many other types of "gangster" guns were banned by that same legislation -- -- and as best I can tell very few citizens at the time felt that their rights were being violated.


Maybe you can help me understand this: Where in the Constitution does it say that it's OK to ban fully automatic firearms but that owning highly destructive semi-automatic guns is a protected right? I know that some people like to say "Read the Constitution!" as though its meanings are really obvious, but they aren't. I think that's why the founding fathers were brilliant enough to establish an independent court to forever interpret the Constitution.


I'm also aware that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is quite "liberal" in that it seems to find very broad rights where previous courts did not see them. Perhaps you are aware that in the early 90's Nixon-appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger gave this opinion about the Second Amendment:


" of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias-- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."


At any rate, I think that there is one thing that we can all agree on: At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 absolutely no one knew the difference between a fully automatic and a semi-automatic firearm. So again, can any "pro Second Amendment" advocate please explain why you think it's Constitutional to ban one but not the other?

Posted by: Judy Olson | Jan 04, 2013 07:19

Thanks to Richard Genthner for a great post.....once our government gets a handle on the deplorable situation that lack of funding has created for the treatment of mental health issues in this country, maybe there will not be such controversy regarding gun control.

Posted by: G H | Jan 03, 2013 10:05

Great post Richard...I think every american citizen, including elected politicians, should re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

Posted by: Richard Genthner | Jan 03, 2013 09:14

Most people dont realize that "Assault Weapons" are already banned under the Nation Firearms Act of 1934. A "Assault Weapon" defined by the US Gov and US Military is a Gun which fires More then One Round per Trigger Pull. This is where the media is confused. A AR-15 by Bushmaster that one can go to any gun shop and buy isn't a "Assault Weapon" By definition of the US Gov/Military and According to NFA. What they are showing is a Semi-Automatic which by definition is One Round per Trigger Pull. From a engineering stand point theres only a few spec differences between a Fully Automatic (Banned Assault Weapon per NFA) and completely Legal(ATF / NFA) Semi-Automatic weapons. According to the NFA its Completely Illegal to modify any weapon produced after 1986 to be a Automatic Weapon. The frenzy which the media and Senator Dianne Feinstein are creating is banning a complete classification of Semi-Automatic without grandfathering any per-existing weapons all based off looks. There was one this person that tried to banned something based off looks and we entered the second world war because of it. Which is no different here. If you look at NYC they completely banned guns and their crime rates went up by 165% in the frist 10 years because no one could defend them. What we need instead of another stupid ban take that money and put it into better mental health care and reporting to not only the local/state level but to federal government. Which is were the lack of communication is.

The sad thing is its going to boil down to who has the most money to pay off the politicians to vote they want versus whats the best for the people. Criminals are always going to get illegal weapons and drugs. Lawful citizens will fallow the laws put in place. But I can say this, If anyone breaks in my house and I feel my life is threatened, I'm going to take care of the problem with one of the many weapons in my house. If I'm out in public and I feel my life is threatened or the place I'm in is threatened I'll use the weapon which I'm legally allowed to carry concealed. No Questions asked. Question is Do you want to be a helpless victim or a victim that stood up and tried to save a life ? And Our Government wants a bunch of helpless victims so it can control every aspect of our lives and take all our rights way with out a fight.

Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Jan 02, 2013 23:25

Thanks Dianna for your very valid points! Those with money and privilege will always have weapons to protect their property and themselves and those they love but want to deny us ordinary citizens the same rights. I will be at the rally and I am hard to miss. I may be the tallest lady there. Please come say hello! Let the Constitution prevail!

Posted by: David J Rockwell | Jan 02, 2013 21:57

Dying from overeating lousy food, or driving drunk is a choice, being the victim of an assailant with an assault  rifle is not. We do not need those weapons designed to kill peope in a civilized society. The Second Ammedment was not intended to include, nor did it anticipate high volume, semi automatic killing machines.

Posted by: Dianna K Trueman | Jan 02, 2013 21:19

Yes we need this if citizens want to have it. Gathering in support and or protest is a right. Our forefathers saw to it that gun ownership would remain legal so that the general public could protect themselves against tyranical governments or anything else that threatened their life.


With regards to ordinary citizens needing assault weapons or automatic weapons.... where does it stop? Who decides which weapons we can posess or how many. Interestingly enough, the people who do make that decision make the laws so that they do not apply to them. They (the legeslative branch of our government) can carry whatever they want.

Each time something new is prohibited, new problems arise. How is that war on drugs going? Law abiding people will follow the laws and the bad guys will be the only people with weapons.

Lastly, define assault weapon. What does that mean?

More people die every day (including children) from overeating, car accidents, or neglect than gun violence. Maybe we should outlaw spoons or cars or neglectful parenting...oh wait...that is illegal...funny, it doesn't stop it from happening does it.

Posted by: michael b benner | Jan 02, 2013 17:56

I don't think anyone is against the second amendment itself. I think a lot of people do not see why an ordinary citizen needs assault weapons and automatic weapons.

Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Jan 02, 2013 16:06

Yes! If we who support the 2nd amendment and the entire Constitution endure the protests against us law abiding gun owners, we want to gather to support one another.

Posted by: Richard McKusic, Sr. | Jan 02, 2013 14:58

Regardless of your beliefs, one way or the other, do we really need this? :(  

If you wish to comment, please login.