Steven Peaslee (far left) said he agrees with the protesters’ message, but brought his firearm to the protest to ensure the monument would remain untouched if the protest spiraled into vandalism. Kathleen O’Brien / The Times Record

Questioning motives

One of the photos on page A8 of June 8’s Times Record showed Steven Peaslee at the protest in Wiscasset armed with what appears to be an AR-15 type rifle. According to the caption, he brought the weapon “to ensure the monument would remain untouched if the protest  spiraled into vandalism.”

I wonder if Mr. Peaslee is seriously proposing to utilize deadly force against his fellow citizens if they were to deface or inflict damage to public property? If he is, then I would suggest that he lacks the common sense and basic knowledge of firearm laws that should be required of all gun-owners and his weapon should be taken from him immediately – he is a danger to society. If, on the other hand, he brought the weapon just for “show” then I wonder what’s his point – to intimidate the protesters, or maybe just to impress his friends? Whatever his intention, the only thing he accomplished in my view was to demonstrate that he lacks the maturity and responsibility to possess a deadly weapon – I suggest he leave it at home from now on.

Steve Clark,

Armed men could have badly escalated situation

The Monday article about the protest in Wiscasset mentions that three armed men stood guard in front of the war memorial near the sheriff’s office. The three men make a compelling argument for gun control. Were they thinking of shooting someone who marred the memorial? In another setting how easy it might have been to escalate the situation. And, what if three African-Americans similarly armed were there to protect the protestors?

Brian Hirst,

filed under: