Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sports Re: Bikes and Guns
Posted by Eli Sanders on Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Lee Colleton, the man who wrote us yesterday to announce that he's carrying a loaded gun on the Seattle To Portland Bicycle Classic this weekend (while also Twittering about it!), has answered some of our many commenter questions:
To all those commentators who made reasoned and thoughtful posts, thank you. I'll briefly address your questions:@3 We have so much in common! I however do not doubt the existence of god, I affirm that there is no such thing. Also, I'm not the son of a bitch.
@5 Average size, not that it matters. You can fairly assume that I'm male from my submarine service.
@8 I have no knowledge of the Dirty Cowboy. Guns and sexplay seem like a very bad combination though. Always handle a firearm as if it were loaded.
@11,86 Using a mobile phone while operating a vehicle is unsafe and illegal. A bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of this restriction.
@12,33,67 I'm doing this to celebrate my right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. I'm also demonstrating that a loaded gun can be safely carried by a cyclist.
@13 Touche, it shouldn't be capitalized as I wasn't referring to a specific group of atheists.
@14,15 No, I've never fired a pistol from a bicycle or any other moving platform and hope that I never have to. I'm not carrying a firearm for defense, it's an exhibition as a celebration of my rights.
@16 I realize that I represent a tiny demographic of gun owners. I doubt that any foreseeable change will affect their lobbying efforts.@20 I'm willing to defend all civil rights and work to see that they're applied universally. I did give six years of my life to the armed service in support of our country while sworn to protect it's Constitution.
@25 Open carry of a firearm in a holster is not brandishing.
@30 I made that statement to contrast myself from the politically conservative, religious fundamentalists Mr. Savage was complaining about in his June 25th post.
@35,55,64 A semiautomatic pistol will not fire unless there is a round chambered. It requires deliberate force to chamber a round, dropping the gun will not cause it to fire.
@42 Violence is not a valid means of settling disputes. Lethal force may only be used to defend a life or person from serious and immanent bodily harm.
@43 I trust the police with my life every day, especially when commuting in Seattle by bicycle. I'm perfectly willing to comply with any order given by a sworn officer of the law.
@57,73 I would not carry a firearm in this manner if the STP were a competitive race, the implicit threat would be obvious. However, it is an exhibition ride along an open course.
@72 I don't consider carrying a firearm to be a significant danger to myself or other riders. If someone wanted to do anyone harm on the ride they could easily commit vehicular manslaughter with their own car.
@80 No, I will not be imbibing alcohol or using any illegal drugs on this ride.
@82 The Student Code of Conduct (WAC 478-120-020) applies to students and faculty of the UW, not the general public. Please don't carry a gun onto the campus if this law applies to you.
For that matter, please review the law carefully for yourself before exercising your right to bear arms. Don't take this as legal advice, some restrictions may apply, void where prohibited, etc.
Namaste.
Share via
7
The extremely important difference between a gun in a holster and a gun in someone's hand is worth harping on. The former is not a threat, the latter is.
I love guns, never owned or carried, but I am glad there are people like Lee celebrating their right to own and carry publicly.
I love guns, never owned or carried, but I am glad there are people like Lee celebrating their right to own and carry publicly.
9
Man, this guy is an attention whore. He must be creaming in his pants over how much attention this is getting. "I ride a bike and I have a gun!" So what?
10
NAMASTE? The only thing that says 'douchebag' more than 'namaste' is a fucking carabiner. Seriously. #bikeSTP.
11
I believe the General conduct code for the University of Washington is for everyone, not just for students:
WAC 478-124-020
2)
(e) Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the university campus, except for authorized university purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?…
WAC 478-124-020
2)
(e) Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the university campus, except for authorized university purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?…
12
"Why is this even remotely interesting? A guns really that much of a novelty? "
No clue, he sounds like a dumb Ron Paulogist.
No clue, he sounds like a dumb Ron Paulogist.
13
Speaking of guns and bicycles, sometimes I feel like taking out a few of them who glare at you and sometimes insult you because they don't think your getting out of thier way soon enough. I pay taxes too bitch and it's called a sideWALK, you dumb cunts.
14
Cool, I love the idea that ANYONE actually read some silly comment I made.
Bike-ridin', gun-toter'... Best of luck to ya and happy trails!
Bike-ridin', gun-toter'... Best of luck to ya and happy trails!
15
It is important and necessary to actually exercise rights every so often, lest they become vestigial and withered.
It's all well and good to pretend that guns don't exist, but the simple fact is that America is awash in firearms. The genie isn't going back in the bottle; there will never be a large scale confiscation in the US. Washington in particular is a very easy state in which to acquire a firearm or a license to carry one concealed; so easy, in fact, that Texas will not reciprocate with us because they consider our policies too lax.
I keep my lifetime range membership card right next to my ACLU card in my wallet.
It's all well and good to pretend that guns don't exist, but the simple fact is that America is awash in firearms. The genie isn't going back in the bottle; there will never be a large scale confiscation in the US. Washington in particular is a very easy state in which to acquire a firearm or a license to carry one concealed; so easy, in fact, that Texas will not reciprocate with us because they consider our policies too lax.
I keep my lifetime range membership card right next to my ACLU card in my wallet.
16
I'm pretty stridently left-wing, and support gun control laws. I disagree with the idea that the 2nd amendment is "clear" and says that "guns protect us from tyrants." (this is what many firearms-rights activists say it says, though).
Nonetheless, I do think that the 2nd amendment guarantees a broad right, and agree with it. Many people need, and therefore ought to be granted the right to, possess weapons. This does not mean that we should have no laws regarding who can have which weapons and what they do with them, but it does mean that broadly restrictive laws prohibiting private gun ownership are on the wrong side of history.
Nonetheless, I do think that the 2nd amendment guarantees a broad right, and agree with it. Many people need, and therefore ought to be granted the right to, possess weapons. This does not mean that we should have no laws regarding who can have which weapons and what they do with them, but it does mean that broadly restrictive laws prohibiting private gun ownership are on the wrong side of history.
17
I trust Lee Colleton's loaded gun could have flipped this script:
http://laist.com/2009/07/11/rider_shot_d…
http://laist.com/2009/07/11/rider_shot_d…
18
@16 "ought to be granted the right"? You realize that that sentence is contradictory; a right is something that cannot be granted.
19
@18: What?
Yes, rights can be granted. You may dispute the authority of the grantor, but that does not change the fact that they have or have not granted you rights.
Not contradictory in the least.
Yes, rights can be granted. You may dispute the authority of the grantor, but that does not change the fact that they have or have not granted you rights.
Not contradictory in the least.
20
I call bullshit on this whole sick thread.
There is no good reason to carry a loaded gun into a crowd of 10,000 athletes, spectators and their families. None. You want to "celebrate your rights" dumbass? Vote. Serve on a jury. Buy a subversive book. Work for the charity of your choice. Don't be bringing the threat of sudden violent death into an unsuspecting crowd of people. That's not a right worth celebrating, that's a tragedy waiting to happen.
You people have lost your ability to see common fucking sense. Guns do not make us safer. I don't care how you twist your reasoning to support your poisonous conclusions. More guns in the streets means more dead people. Period.
There is no good reason to carry a loaded gun into a crowd of 10,000 athletes, spectators and their families. None. You want to "celebrate your rights" dumbass? Vote. Serve on a jury. Buy a subversive book. Work for the charity of your choice. Don't be bringing the threat of sudden violent death into an unsuspecting crowd of people. That's not a right worth celebrating, that's a tragedy waiting to happen.
You people have lost your ability to see common fucking sense. Guns do not make us safer. I don't care how you twist your reasoning to support your poisonous conclusions. More guns in the streets means more dead people. Period.
21
I admire Mr. Collaton. He is a true patriot, and he, like I, am prepared in the increasingly likely event of an armed insurrection against Obama.
22
i like where this is going.
have we seen pics of this fine young man yet? i bet he's a looker.
i'd blow him if he is uncut.
have we seen pics of this fine young man yet? i bet he's a looker.
i'd blow him if he is uncut.
23
When I was 8, we took playing cards and clipped them on the bike so the wheel spokes would hit them. They would make a sound like a machine gun and we would pretend we were fighter pilots and have dogfights in the street.
Is that the same as this guy?
Is that the same as this guy?
25
rights cannot be granted, they by (my) definition pre-exist and can only be RECOGNIZED. anything else is not a right, it is permission, granted on behalf of society (or so the thinking goes) by those with the delegated authority to do so. A right, by what I think could fairly be called the Framers definition, inheres in every human being by mere fact of their existence. To me this is makes very clear sense with respect to something such as freedom of expression or privacy. It's muddier with respect a right to bear arms but there it is in the Constitution...
I have a semantic beef with the gay rights movement in that they are seeking a granting of rights.. they should not seek that, rather we should insist on a recognition of a right we have always had inherently but which has been denied by a political majority.
“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.” William J. Brennan, Jr.
I have a semantic beef with the gay rights movement in that they are seeking a granting of rights.. they should not seek that, rather we should insist on a recognition of a right we have always had inherently but which has been denied by a political majority.
“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.” William J. Brennan, Jr.
26
@25: From any practical point of view, recognizing a pre-existing right and granting a right have the same ramifications. Moreover, the meaning of the word "grant" is virtually the same in this context as "recognize."
You are correct in saying that this is a semantic beef, and it strikes me as kind of a strange and petty one. It seems like a kind of political correctness, meant more to control what other people say than to provide any kind of insight or understanding.
You are correct in saying that this is a semantic beef, and it strikes me as kind of a strange and petty one. It seems like a kind of political correctness, meant more to control what other people say than to provide any kind of insight or understanding.
27
Recently I bumped into a cop who was involved somehow in last year's Folklife gun-nut-pistol-whips-another-dude-and-accidentally-shoots-three-innocent-bystanders incident. I brought it up as an example of how dangerous it is for the random untrained moron (Shout out to Mr. Colleton!) to be packin' a gun around in a crowd.
The cop insisted that he knew the real story, and it wasn't what the media reported. There was indeed a fight (and the cop didn't deny that the gun nut started it), but at some point the gun nut's gun became visible - he didn't draw it, instead someone spotted it in his holster, or tucked into the waistband of his underoos, or something. Anyway, other people started grabbing for his gun, and there was a fight to get control of it.
That's when the gun nut lost control of it, and in the scuffle it went off. He wasn't pistol-whipping the other dude after all.
And yet... and yet.
As a gun-totin' gun nut, you have a VERY BIG FUCKIN' RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR GUN OR YOUR TEMPER!
So the cop's side of the incident doesn't change a goddamn thing. The gun nut got mad, got in a fight, and three innocent people got hurt.
So Mr Colleton, exactly how is anyone safer, even yourself, when you bring a visible loaded gun into public view? What precautions will you be taking to make sure nobody gets hurt, and nobody attempts to wrestle your own gun away from you?
Are you some kinda super-cool emotionless Vulcan dude who swears not to ever, ever lose your temper?
Do you have some kinda kryptonite-based super-strong buckle on your holster, so nobody can wrestle your gun away?
Or are you just another dim-bulb gun nut with a very, very bad idea and no common sense? Oh wait, never mind.
More...
The cop insisted that he knew the real story, and it wasn't what the media reported. There was indeed a fight (and the cop didn't deny that the gun nut started it), but at some point the gun nut's gun became visible - he didn't draw it, instead someone spotted it in his holster, or tucked into the waistband of his underoos, or something. Anyway, other people started grabbing for his gun, and there was a fight to get control of it.
That's when the gun nut lost control of it, and in the scuffle it went off. He wasn't pistol-whipping the other dude after all.
And yet... and yet.
As a gun-totin' gun nut, you have a VERY BIG FUCKIN' RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR GUN OR YOUR TEMPER!
So the cop's side of the incident doesn't change a goddamn thing. The gun nut got mad, got in a fight, and three innocent people got hurt.
So Mr Colleton, exactly how is anyone safer, even yourself, when you bring a visible loaded gun into public view? What precautions will you be taking to make sure nobody gets hurt, and nobody attempts to wrestle your own gun away from you?
Are you some kinda super-cool emotionless Vulcan dude who swears not to ever, ever lose your temper?
Do you have some kinda kryptonite-based super-strong buckle on your holster, so nobody can wrestle your gun away?
Or are you just another dim-bulb gun nut with a very, very bad idea and no common sense? Oh wait, never mind.
28
@ 20 - You say "More guns in the streets means more dead people. Period."
Really? Try telling that to Jeanne Assam, see if you can get her to believe that: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20…
Whoa, looks like it's not an isolated incident: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humanintere…
This is a big scary world, and sadly, there are some bad and crazy people in it... I don't give a shit about their mental issues or how disadvantaged they were growing up... A gun is just a tool, nothing more nor less, and when bad crazy people start acting up, you better HOPE there's an informed citizen somewhere about who is not hysterical over the use of a tool...........
Really? Try telling that to Jeanne Assam, see if you can get her to believe that: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20…
Whoa, looks like it's not an isolated incident: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humanintere…
This is a big scary world, and sadly, there are some bad and crazy people in it... I don't give a shit about their mental issues or how disadvantaged they were growing up... A gun is just a tool, nothing more nor less, and when bad crazy people start acting up, you better HOPE there's an informed citizen somewhere about who is not hysterical over the use of a tool...........
29
@11 -- I dunno. The sanctions on this page http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?… only include those for faculty, students and staff. I can't find anything that mentions general public.
ie
(2) Disciplinary action which may result in dismissal from the university will be initiated against faculty, staff, or students who violate these rules, in accordance with the applicable disciplinary codes or other appropriate due process procedures.
ie
(2) Disciplinary action which may result in dismissal from the university will be initiated against faculty, staff, or students who violate these rules, in accordance with the applicable disciplinary codes or other appropriate due process procedures.
30
i think mr gun nut is trying to dispel the notion dr_awesome and gurldoggie have that guns are inherently dangerous to bring into the public space. clearly DrA and GurlD feel otherwise. Gunnut might fail at his objective, but he's clearly identified the difference of opinion and is attempting to bring that into the public discourse.
(i'm not sure what i think about it. even Gunnut may acknowledge that not all people should carry guns while riding, but only those who are properly prepared. such an argument, however, would lend credence to the view that licenses and restrictions are necessary... blah blah blah....)
also, rights cannot be granted or they are not rights. this may just be semantic, and in most cases practice may be rather similar to principle. but it sets a clear delineation in the mind and in law regarding how to handle these issues. i do think language is, at time, important in this way.
(i'm not sure what i think about it. even Gunnut may acknowledge that not all people should carry guns while riding, but only those who are properly prepared. such an argument, however, would lend credence to the view that licenses and restrictions are necessary... blah blah blah....)
also, rights cannot be granted or they are not rights. this may just be semantic, and in most cases practice may be rather similar to principle. but it sets a clear delineation in the mind and in law regarding how to handle these issues. i do think language is, at time, important in this way.
31
Merry @28 is absolutely correct. So far, every state that has enacted "shall issue" concealed carry laws has seen a decrease in the violent crime rate. Coincidence? I think not.
33
#31: That's complete bullshit. The only state that showed a decrease in gun violence after passing concealed carry laws is Florida, which also passed stricter gun control (background checks) during the same period.
Fewer guns = less criminal violence. I don't think there has ever been a study that has shown otherwise. Concealed guns are a red herring, since they don't increase or decrease the number of guns people have.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs…
Fewer guns = less criminal violence. I don't think there has ever been a study that has shown otherwise. Concealed guns are a red herring, since they don't increase or decrease the number of guns people have.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs…
34
Merry @ 28:
Um, if you were trying to prove that "guns make us safer," I'm afraid you failed miserably. It's the easy availability of guns that turns all those incidents from sad cases of isolated losers into epic tragedies.
Of course, if you were trying to say that we are better off avoiding churches, and that Christians should never be issued firearms, then I wholeheartedly agree.
Um, if you were trying to prove that "guns make us safer," I'm afraid you failed miserably. It's the easy availability of guns that turns all those incidents from sad cases of isolated losers into epic tragedies.
Of course, if you were trying to say that we are better off avoiding churches, and that Christians should never be issued firearms, then I wholeheartedly agree.
35
I had envisioned him attempting to tweet and peddle at the same time with a gun stuffed down his pants (gangster style). I was sure this would result in the demise Mr. Colleton....and possibly several fellow bikers, passing motorists, and probably a state trooper or two. His response sounds sane and reasonable. (His first letter left out some important details about is plans.) Nice to know he's being responsible and safe.
36
again, thank you sir for existing, it gives me hope that there are other intelligent, bike riding, liberal people like us out there.
37
@26 - Actually, there are ramifications in the difference. Here in Porterville CA we are engaged in trying to get City Council to back off from their October hateful resolution in favor of urging locals to vote for Prop 8. Which they then did to the tune of 75% plus. Search on "Prop 8" and "gay rights" etc. on the local paper's web site, portervillerecorder.com for the ugly details.
Now, those same voters are saying, among other things, that no rights were changed by Prop 8, yet their representatives argued before the CA Supreme Court that the People do have the right to remove existing rights from people via the Initiative Process and a popular vote.
The implication, which could not be less American in its principle, is that all minorities have rights only by the grace of the majority, and that is subject to change at anytime, not something anyone can rely on, should the minorities get too uppity.
This is not what Rights mean in our jurisprudence system dating back almost 1000 years, but it seems to be how some people think of them when they are not at the pointy end of the stick.
Now, those same voters are saying, among other things, that no rights were changed by Prop 8, yet their representatives argued before the CA Supreme Court that the People do have the right to remove existing rights from people via the Initiative Process and a popular vote.
The implication, which could not be less American in its principle, is that all minorities have rights only by the grace of the majority, and that is subject to change at anytime, not something anyone can rely on, should the minorities get too uppity.
This is not what Rights mean in our jurisprudence system dating back almost 1000 years, but it seems to be how some people think of them when they are not at the pointy end of the stick.
38
Thank you Mr. Colleton, you're clearly a well thought out and reasonable person. While I almost always side left and often disagree with gun ownership, I really appreciate your well reasoned responses to people's concerns (even in the face of so many rude and non-productive comments). Hope you finished the race in one day. Cheers.
40
@ 40 It's irresponsible and inflammatory diatribe just like yours that is the reason it remains illegal in the United States to actually own laser-equipped fingers. Fuck you. Fuck your hippy friends.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS