“Sure, the NRA and gun lovers will kick and scream as they always do, but at some point, America must draw the line against letting those groups jeopardize our safety and take a stand for our right to be free of gun violence. I want to say that again — our right to be free of gun violence, our right to be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves, and most of all, our right to life.” – Sanjay Sanghoee in Where Is Gun Control? [at huffingtonpost.com]

Recommended For You

84 Responses to Quote of the Day: The Right To Walk Around Edition

      • That’s what’s so infuriating about nonsense like this. The implication is that because of his skin color TM has the right to beath the shit out of GZ because he looked at him wrong. That sounds like a great way to improve race relations.

    • My SCAR 17 agrees! Ha!

      I have bad news for Sanjay. He has no “right to be free of gun violence.” While Americans enjoy (for now) many rights, such a fanciful notion is not among them. As in any free society he is responsible for his own destiny; no one can secure it for him. This includes the responsibility to secure his person from harm. It is for this very reason, amongst others, that our nation has confirmed his natural, fundamental, civil and human right to do just that. By electing not to exercise it he is shrugging off this responsibility, presumably onto the backs of law enforcement. Of course as the RKBA is a “right” and not a compulsion, Sanjay is perfectly within his liberty to do so. Furthermore, Police Officers are paid by the people and Sanjay reasonably counts on their protection. Sadly, the reality is that most violent encounters will be over in less than a minute; far less than the response time of the average police officer. Barring a miracle, i.e. the police just happen to be on his street at that moment, they will NOT be there in time to save him. Period. Sanjay’s inability to accept responsibility for his own destiny empowers the criminal class to victimize. While he currently enjoys both the RKBA and the right to life, his refusal of one endangers the other. Rights, liberties and civility do not, by virtue of their existence, prevent evil people from doing evil things. Only good, liberty-loving people with the courage to confront evil can do that. Sanjay’s “right to be free of gun violence,” is about as fundamental as my right to free of meteorite strikes or my right to be free from rear end collisions during rush hour. There is a reason that the bill of rights doesn’t contain the eleventh “Right to free from bad things happening.”

      Rights are defined by the simultaneous empowerment of the individual (or groups thereof) and the limitation of government power. Sanjay’s implication is that the RKBA is, by default, an infringement upon his right to life. Using his logic, gun control is essential because of the possibility that an arm may be used to deprive him of his life. This is an archetype for why “rights” are defined by the aforementioned definition and not by the emotional whims of petulant journalists.

      Should the freedom of the press be controlled because Mr. Sanjay’s peers collectively distorted the facts surrounding the George Zimmerman trial? Their actions have led to sporadic vandalism and racially motivated assaults throughout the nation, with more to come. While cloaked in crony journalism, Sanjay would likely assert that the follow-on violence is the result of the trial, its outcome and George Zimmerman’s actions. I believe, however, that deep down even he is aware that the trial was initiated, stoked, sensationalized and misrepresented in the name of ratings, advertising and consumerism. The unbridled freedom of the press is therefore, by Sanjay’s definition, an infringement upon my rights to life and property. It must be, because of the possibility that media sensationalism could lead others to harm me or my property, right? Shall moms demand action for media-induced violence?

      Of course not, because we do not accept the premise that journalists’ rights can be restricted or revoked simply because of what others MIGHT do as a result of their actions. Just as we cannot restrict or revoke the rights of gun owners due to the POTENTIAL that one of them may deprive Sanjay of his right to life. A freedom-loving nation does not sacrifice its liberties in order to address the behaviors of its worst citizens.

  1. He left out his right to get the sh*t beaten out of him by random criminals. That goes hand in hand with not having an arsenal. Though something tells me he walks around unarmed anyways…

  2. We gun lovers support the right to life and safety, which is why we own and or carry, because unlike you Mr. Sanjay, we don’t want to be “kicking and screaming” like your kind will, when somebody with ten convictions decides to make you his bitch in your own home.

  3. “…our right to be free of gun violence, our right to be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves, and most of all, our right to life.”

    Your rights end where mine begin…stop crying about your rights if you can’t respect the rights of others.

    My rights start at #1 on this little thing called the Bill of Rights and last I checked #2 was still there.

    • ^ That.

      That is what progressives do not understand. Individual Rights. My rights end at yours, and yours at mine. It is so simple that every single creature on the planet understands it except most human beings.

      • That’s what it’s all about. The extinguishing of the individual by subsuming him into the GroupThink.

        GAAAAAA! MUST. COOL. DOWN.

    • I guarantee someone is going to get hurt if that goes down in my house or vehicle. Perpetrators of violence have a right to know they are going to get hurt during their perpetrating.

  4. Oh teh noes! TTAG is forcing me to look at one small paragraph of an anti-gun editorial! Make the bad man stop!

    • It’s not just that paragraph of the editorial Sock Monkey- the entire article is misguided rhetoric designed to evoke emotional responses that ignore inconvenient elements of the real world such as facts.

      Now run along – browse back to Mother Jones to fill your vacant mind with more agitprop…

  5. The funny thing is about people like Sanjay, if we were talking while waiting in line somewhere, he would have no idea that I conceal carry!

  6. Somebody needs to double check his rights. Just because you demand a “right” that you invented doesn’t mean it exists anywhere other than in your own mind.

    • Until, of course, you get some hack of a Congressman to
      propose a law affirming your “right”and buy off a
      majority of the Supreme Court to back it.

      • The UN charter says people have the right to “feel” safe. Apparently it gives them a backdoor to take away the rights of everybody else.

      • Don’t exaggerate, Chuck. You should know that the Supreme Court is very rational and can’t be bought off. The only way they would affirm Sanjay Sanghoee’s constitutional right to walk around is if the statute giving him that right was declared a tax.

  7. I love the attempted continuation of the myth that this nation is plagued with a worsening gun violence problem, despite every single data set suggesting otherwise.

    • It is rather scary how many people believe media editorials as fact and have oddly preconceived notions about illegality of firearms.

      I have a family friend who was glad they allowed concealed carry in Wisconsin so she could now purchase a pistol. She didn’t know that we’ve always been able to own pistols. Wonder what else she thinks is illegal.

  8. “Gun violence”….

    Had to double check, again….

    Nope

    All my firearms are EXACTLY where the wife and I last put them….

    They have yet to commit any violence on their own!

    • You’ve been lucky PK. Just last weekend I was assaulted by an AR15. With visible malevolence it spun on its sling, simultaneously striking me in the chin and groin. Bystanders were certain that it was attempting to align the its muzzle and finish me. Fortunately I was able to wrestle it under control before it could implement its master plan and perpetrate a massacre.
      If it had managed to coordinate its actions with all the other guns in the vicinity surely none of us would have survived.
      Everyone knows that the sling is there as a leash and that holsters are like kennels, designed to keep the evil guns from breaking free and going on a rampage!

  9. Well there is the fantasy of walking around and not being bothered but people are mugged every day…that reality doesn’t exist. So the reality is if you want to walk around and be safe and be free of violence, be ready to deal out violence to those who would deal it to you if, Heaven forbid, you need to.

  10. “right to be free of gun violence, our right to be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves”

    I completely agree, but first we need to eliminate poverty, racism, supremacism, and ass****s. Until then I trust my life to my ability and tools to respond to those attacks made against me and mine.

    • Mr. Sanghoee will just wet himself and then search his pockets for his rape whistle should he ever get mugged…

  11. “I want to say that again — our right to be free of gun violence, our right to be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves, and most of all, our right to life.”

    My “right” to be safe and my “right” to life is implemented by my right to keep and bear arms. Disarming the honorable takes from them their “right” to be safe, diminishes their “right” to life.

    If you were to ban and confiscate every gun you were able to for 100 years you still end up with a heavily armed criminal element.

  12. well, people in Baltimore City do not have that right because the drug dealers disobey the law. The residents lock their doors, shut their windows, and stay inside – they live in their own personal prison. Its not the permitted CCW residents who are threatening them.

  13. These are the same people that write about their “right” to a tall mocha latte within 2 minutes, their “right” to drive to work without traffic, and the “right” to sleep in on the days they don’t work free of of the sound of lawnmowers. When they use the word “right” they actually mean “selfish entitlement”, and the list of entitlements only grows. As soon as you see that word you know they are just complaining. The problem is those entitlements will eventually contradict each other and give way to reveal their overly idealistic fantasies and fabrications. Those entitlements regularly infringe on actual rights, but it’s ok to them if they don’t care about those rights.

    It’s a new age of stupidity, one where simply getting out of bed means you have the “right” (are entitled) to anything and everything you want with little to no work. Nothing is earned where everything is given, that is called a utopia and they don’t exist, but some are trapped in the fantasy and rhetoric of one.

    • Good observation, Fred. Who the hell is Sanjay Sanghoee and why should I care about his blather? Answer: Nobody and I don’t.

      • I understand your sentiment, but you really should care about what he thinks and says. People like this have to be combated, head on. Our rights would be taken away gladly by this assclown, we have to remain ever vigilant in our protection of them.

        • If we waste CPU cycles on them we grant validity to their deluded ravings.
          If we instead ignore them (by not clicking or replying to them directly) we allow them to wither up and blow away into the dustbin of foolishness and naivete.

    • Margarette Thatcher supposedly once said, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”

      I will modify that slightly to this, “Utopia exists until you run out of other people’s rights to deny.”

    • I agree with everything you said. However, those people that start mowing their lawn at 0630 on Saturday drive me nuts.

      • I have no issues if it’s the homeowner doing the work and that’s the time they have to do it. I DO have issues with the paid landscaping crews that fire up 2 mowers, an edger, a blower and a !@#$% chipper at 6:30 so they can finish their day before the afternoon heat. F%^& those guys.

        • But you probably have a problem with them working at 9:30 PM, too. Mowing is big business, with a lot to get done for a successful crew. And you have to take a break and lunch sometime to do manual labor all day.

        • @Drew – Indeed, that was to whom I was referring. A Dixie Chopper, 2 cycle weed whacker and leaf blower roaring outside of my bedroom window early on a weekend tends to strain my capacity for self control. If it were my neighbor himself, I’d probably still be annoyed, but not to the point of opening the window and yelling for him to STFU.

  14. Interestingly, the comments section on this article at Huffington Post is almost exclusively pro-gun. Didn’t expect that.

      • Certainly a contrast with Democratic Underground, where any pro-gun comments are immediately shouted down.

    • That’s because the pro-gun people find out about it and essentially flood the comments section. Must really irk the HuffPo moderators who screen the comments 😀

      • I came here to comment on this. I see an overwhelming majority of pro 2A comments at the bottom of most anti-2A articles. I think either gun owners and those who support the constitution are getting more active, or many leftists have lost some of their enthusiasm for this topic. Of course, it could be some of both.

        Regardless, it will be interesting to see how badly the Dems pay for stepping on the “third rail” come 2014. For some reason I keep thinking of the jingle from the Ren and Stimpy show: “Don’t whiz on the electric fence.”

  15. Mr. Sanghoee has a right to do anything he wants … unless what he wants is to deny my rights to me.

    Here is the breakdown:
    Mr. Sanghoee has a right to walk around anywhere in public.
    Mr. Sanghoee has a right to possess any personal property he wants.
    Mr. Sanghoee even has a right to possess no personal property as he walks around in public if he so chooses.

    What Mr. Sanghoee does NOT have a right to do is demand that I give up my personal property anywhere. Any rationale that he claims for demanding that I give up my personal property is irrelevant.

  16. In the trenches of humanity, you’re responsible only for you and yours’ safety. In the enclave of entitlement, you have someone doing that fight for you.

  17. “Those groups” that jeopardize his safety”. Seriously? Last I checked studies show that law abiding gun owners commit far less crimes and that the possibility that a potential victim may be armed actually keeps unarmed people safe. If we are disarmed he would be less safe. But hey, the left is all heart and no brain. They mean well, but the road to hell is paved with their good intentions.

  18. Sanjay Sanghoee needs to go to the gun range and experience firing a gun for the first time. Since he obviously fears guns so much.

    Sanjay also needs to do some research here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India
    (Particularly the parts about the armed forces and police – and the fake missions the military occasionally performs)

    Then accept the fact that either him or his parents brought him here to the US for a more free and better life. What him or his parents apparently didn’t understand is – that with freedom and a better life come come responsibility. Responsibility to resist corruption and responsibility to safeguard your own self, family, and freedom. No one else is going to do that for you.

    Grouping gun owners with CCW permits and criminals in the same boat is a complete misrepresentation of us and misunderstanding on his part. Does Sanjay actually think that if us gun owners cast away our CCW and never carry publicly that things will be safer? Criminals carry and don’t have a CCW. His statements above twist the relations of all parties discussed into something they are not. He appears to fear the gun – not the criminal.

    • Human beings want to live where life is “better.” So they move. When they go to that “better” place they bring with them the ideas that ruined their original home in the first place. They implement these toxic ideas and slowly ruin their “better” place. Then they grow to dislike that place and decide they need to move on…

      This isn’t necessarily a foreign immigration statement, I’ve seen it happen with people moving from state to state to. As, say, liberal Californians become increasingly disenchanted with the problems they’ve created in their home state they leave for other western states where life is better. Then they start implementing the same sorts of legislation that they left behind….

  19. The problem for poor Sanjay is that the people themselves have moved on. Real people are concerned about much more pressing issues than some arbitrary move toward gun control. Sanjay and his comrades just can’t accept that the vast majority of people simply think their pet grievances are not all that important. But Sanjay will keep trying to get something to happen because he knows best what should happen, and not just for him but for all of us. Must be a terrible burden to be so much smarter than everyone else, particularly when the plebes are calling their congressmen not to complain about guns but about so many other issues.

    The people have moved on, Sanjay. They just don’t care about your agenda. See:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/162995/economy-top-issue-dominance-lessens.aspx

    • The problem is his cohorts couldn’t move the needle forward on stuff that matters like the economy, so they still dwell on this in hope that they’ll succeed where they’ve failed at everything else.

      Given that they’re anti-liberty on everything else, they should fail.

  20. Last I checked, my right to keep and bear arms is well documented, while I am unaware of any documented rights to “be free of gun violence” or “be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves,” much less a “right to life.”

    What planet does this idiot live on?

    • I seem to be remiss in research, but I know of no place or time in the history of man that one has not been well advised to go armed. From the first time a creature more ape than man struck another of his kind with a stone or a long bone to the very present moment being armed for ones own defense has been the rule. Any other approach is folly. CCW, Castle Doctrine and SYG laws did not create the situation, they affirm the natural right that has always existed, to resist effectively when attacked.

  21. Maybe someday we can pass some really restrictive, common sense gun laws and be rid of gun violence once and for all just like Mexico.

  22. “… without having to carry an arsenal **to protect ourselves**…”

    Well, at least he got that much right. I guess.

  23. I’m sorry, but you do not have a constitutionally protected right to personal safety, as safety is not something that governments are able or qualified to provide. In fact, if you rely on the (any) government to assure your complete safety at all times, you are likely to get just the opposite.

  24. Sounds like he should be aiming is ire at criminals and not law abiding people.

    Sad that he can’t make the distinction.

  25. There are times when, just to teach many of the sheeple citizens their proper lesson, I’d like guns to disappear from being owned by common Americans for a limited time. The results would be far higher levels of new violence in the forms of street assaults, muggings, home intrusions, kidnappings, extortion, knife and hammer attacks, rapes, and murders. I wrote “many” since some of the sheeple are so stupid they would probably still want law-abiding citizens unarmed.

  26. Sure, the NAACP and white liberals will kick and scream as they always do, but at some point, America must draw the line against letting those groups jeopardize our safety, and take a stand for our right to be free of black violence.

  27. He still has the right to walk through Chitago with a sign: ” I’m unarmed and in love with Rohm Emanuel”

  28. Well, if I had a chance to talk to this man face to face, I would tell him that the law already thought about his desires and covers them nicely.

    His “right to be free of gun violence?” it’s already illegal for someone to shoot him. Unless in self defense, but at the risk of profiling, he doesn’t look like he’s going to rob a 7-11.

    His “right to walk around safely without an arsenal?” Unless he chooses to live in Switzerland, Israel, or another nation where military service is required, he’s covered there too.

    His “right to life?” Kind of touched on this already, but the same laws that say you can’t just shoot him for no reason? Well, I’m pretty sure they say you can’t kill him any other way either.

    Oddly enough, all of these are protected by… guns. And the good men and women who carry them, in and out of uniform, here at home and sometimes overseas, including many of you as you just go about your business. Of course, you all knew that already. And he wouldn’t listen.

  29. This naif talks about his “right to walk around safely without an arsenal?” In many states, including the state (and the city) that he resides in have made act of weapon carrying a criminal offense. How’s that working out for ya, Sanjay?

  30. This scumbag says in the article he thinks the 2A is outdated blah blah blah rainbows and unicorns, whatever. So my question is why doesn’t he campaign for its repeal instead of being a disingenuous asshole and trying to subvert it as much as possible?

  31. There is no such thing as a right to be free from violence of any kind, only a right to defend your self from violence. There is no right to happiness just a right to pursue it

  32. I want him to tell me that its safer to walk the streets in any Mexican border town than it is to walk the streets in Portal, Ga. They have a National Gun Control Law. You can have a gun in Mexico if you are rich, connected, Police or Military. What kind of gun control do they have in Chicago, Ill. or Camden, New Jersey? I believe they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.. But is it safer to walk the streets of Chicago or Camden, that walk the streets of Portal, Ga. I bet the Mayor of Chicago will not walk the streets of Down Town Chicago at night with out a police escort and private body guards. But he can walk the streets of my town with out fear even though he is black.

  33. Who cares what a libtard (democrat) like Sanjay thinks. Aint nothing he can do about it anyway. He can choose to be unarmed, and I can choose to be armed. Choice is nice.

  34. “…our right to be able to walk around safely without having to carry an arsenal to protect ourselves…”

    I guess he’s a Zimmerman supporter, right? GZ wasn’t carrying an arsenal, only a single concealed carry gun.

  35. “Feeling” safe and “being” safe are not always the same thing. In fact, I would say they rarely are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *