Indians For Guns

Here is the story of a successful immigrant, one of Indian origin.

Sanjay Sangohee has by all accounts enjoyed great success since coming to America. His Huffington Post biography makes that abundantly clear:

Sanjay Sanghoee is a banker and the author of Merger, a fast-paced financial thriller published by Forge Books and reviewed by Chicago Tribune, BARRON’s and others - available on Amazon. . . . He has more than a decade of experience in banking, ranging from Mergers & Acquisitions at Lazard and Dresdner to the investment side at Ramius, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund.

One might expect that such prosperity would have inspired some gratitude for the system of government that allowed him the freedom to parlay his talents and hard work into such comfortable wealth, but even a cursory perusal of his Huffington Post columns shows that Sangohee believes that much of the way in which things are done in his adopted nation should be dramatically changed.

Here is a comment he left responding to a readers comments:

People need to get off their literal following of the constitution [sic] for every single thing.

So he wants us to believe that "the supreme law of the land" should be taken figuratively? So the government can come along and say tomorrow; "the right to free speech is just a figure of speech and need not be respected"? You must ask yourself what point could there be to a constitution where rights enumerated in it can be dismissed by un-elected officials whose job it is supposed to be to serve the people?
http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gu ... nstitution


In another article he claims (when talking about mass shootings):

I think it's worth considering what our Founding Fathers would have done if they had been confronted by such carnage in their own time.

Of course, for this analogy to be meaningful, it's necessary to imagine that the weaponry of the time had advanced to the level that we have today, because it's pretty hard to commit mass murder with the rickety weapons of the 1700s, like the flintlock fowler. So assuming a level playing field, would the Founding Fathers have removed the Second Amendment from the Constitution or abandoned the idea of empowering citizens to defend themselves because of a string of mass shootings? Not likely, but what they would have done is created a strong set of restrictions to ensure that guns were not abused by people to harm the welfare of their fellow citizens:

Yet the founding fathers specifically went in and put in an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms rather than restrict arms. Hmm!
Maybe they were remembering other mass shootings like when British troops shot and bayoneted American militiamen on Lexington Green in 1775. Could that be why they put that in? After all "the shot heard around the world" was fired as a direct result of British troops going out to confiscate arms and ammunition from the general populace.

He also says:

Essential to putting firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens is their ability to use those weapons responsibly and in a manner that minimizes the chance of accidents. That would have been addressed by the Founding Fathers through a rigorous and community-based system to train and test all gun owners every six months to ensure competency. Those who did not meet the community's standards would have had their private guns confiscated until they could do so.

LOL. What did he just get done smoking?
The American's of the day (like many Americans today) used guns as tools every day and many, many of them were far better shots than the "trained" British regulars. They proved it pretty conclusively, didn't they? One has to realize that quite a few of these British troops were seasoned old campaigners who were a part of the most powerful military organization of the time. Yet they were beaten by "firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens".

Bruce Kraft thoroughly deconstructs his post in his article here. It's definitely worth reading. He uses facts (OMG!) and actual data to debunk this guy rather than fantasy and feelings.

Burnei Madoff

ah well if one wants to cut ones own throat so be it. however one does not have any rights what so ever to cut others throats.

or a case of biting the hand that feeds you?

Aloha,

My family came to the US From Japan. They embraced their new country without complaints.

As many of us Americans would come right out and tell him,

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE US, GO HOME TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM

I and many of my friends have been known to tell people off when they critisize the United States.

YogiBear wrote: IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE US, GO HOME TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM

+ 1. Come home Sanjay Sangohee.
and don't forget to get all those $$$$$$$$$$$$.
We don't have "common people" moving around with AK 47's.
But we do have terrorists moving around with them. Remember 26/11

Sanjay Sangohee comes across as an all knowing arrogant p***k.Probably has a huge chip on his shoulder because of his ethnicity and thus has to prove his superiority by telling the Americans how to run the show.If he does not like it there he can come to India. But wait,I am sure he sneers at Indians and does not want to have anything to do with the country.

The United States of America have evolved over centuries with traditions, history and culture that is rooted in the soil. Part of that tradition is the right to keep and bear arms which is duly enshrined in the Constitution. An immigrant, even a successful banker, may not have wholly assimilated this rich heritage of culture, history and traditions.

Regards.

Using the 1st Amendment to undermine the 2nd seems a bit rich, if you ask me!!!

c'mon gentlemen the aforementioned p#*%k manages hedge funds for a living, you really expect him to be anything but a selfsmugarrogantpuguglynogoodwhinyschemingconnivingmanipulativescumbag!

prashantsingh wrote:

YogiBear wrote: IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE US, GO HOME TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM

+ 1. Come home Sanjay Sangohee.

I strongly disagree with the above sentiments! Even though I disagree with his views on gun rights in the USA, he is an American citizen and has as much right to like and dislike whatever he wants as I do -- that kind of freedom is supposed to be what this country is about.

Generally, I decline from discussing US politics, because I feel it detracts from what we are here for: gun rights in India. However,perhaps a discussion of XL's post can help us define gun rights in India and what they mean.

The US Constitution is the law of the land here. It is not a perfect document, and it is clear that the framers of it didn't think it was, either, or they would not have made provisions for it to be amended.

Nor does it and can it take into account machine guns, atomic weapons, the Internet, and genetic engineering. Rather, I see it as providing a framework to address the point of government, as stated once by Ramachandra Guha: that government exists to settle social conflicts. (Along with this, it also is expected to provide national security, of course.)

I do not view the US Constitution as Sacred Scripture, inviolable and inerrant, in other words. I fact, I would point out that e Constitution itself did not contain the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, nor Free Speech, nor a freedom from a state-sponsored religion. These provisions were added in the first 10 Amendments, which are usually called the Bill of Rights, and there was much disagreement among what are often called "The Founding Fathers" as to what the Bill of Rights should contain or whether there should be any Bill of Rights at all. Indeed, one famous founding father, Alexander Hamilton, wanted no Bill of Rights at all. Instead, he wanted individual rights to be unstated, as they are in English Law.

I take a skeptical view on these arguments that are based on "what the founding fathers thought" or "what the founding fathers intended," since it is very clear that they didn't all agree on anything and it's also clear that we cannot read their minds, so nobody can claim expertise on what they really intended in every instance.

However, if we are to look at intent, let us examine some unpleasant facts:

The US Constitution sanctioned and codified salvery and the ownership of other human beings. Sme of our founding fathers intended and believed in this, and the rest were willing to compromise on it in order to reach an agreement to form the USA.

Thomas Jefferson made the foundational statement of the USA and the basis of its sovereignty among nations when he wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence from the English Crown:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Let us examine what this Founding Father intended when he wrote these words.

1. He owned slaves, himself, until the day he died.
2. He mated with at least one female slave that he owned.
3. The female slave he mated with was a young teenager. Under today's laws, he could be charged with statutory rape, because the slave girl he mated with would be considered by law to be too you g to make a decision on her own behalf.
4. The child that was conceived by this union was not considered by Jefferson to be worthy of the lofty rights of whichever so eloquently wrote in the Declaration, and this child that he fathered remained his slave -- his property -- for all of his life.
5. This fact was proven scientifically when the white Jefferson decendants denied the African American decendants the right to participate in Jefferson family reunions, and DNA tests were performed to proved that Jefferson had, indeed, fathered a child by his teenaged slave, Sally Hemings. Such evidence would be admissible in a court of law today, just as in any other paternity suit.

Here, I note an odd thing: I have talked to many people about the above facts regarding the man who is, perhaps, the key ideological force behind the USA. Every white person I talk to holds Jefferson to be a great man. Every African American holds him in a negative light. This is not a scientific poll on my part, but it bet it would hold up in an election.

The principle of the "non personhood" of Native Americans and African American slaves is forever enshrined, to our shame, in Article 1 Section 2 of our Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Furthermore, I would also note that the Constituiton and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was only looked at as applying in a federal sense: it did not apply to the States until the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former African American slaves.

So, based on what I've just said and a lot more like it, I am very leery of the commonly made appeal to what the founding fathers wanted and what the founding fathers intended. There are some things that they wanted and intended that I very strongly disagree with and which I'm glad to see abolished!

It is very clear to me that, as a gun owner, I DO NOT favor state's rights, and am happy that the Costitution and the power of the Federal Government to apply the Bill of Rights, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, applies to ALL citizens of ALL states, and that no state can take these rights away from me. I fact, a recent Supreme Court ruling made exactly that decision and struck down state restrictions on ngun ownership by law abiding citizens, which is as it should be, and they furthermore confirmed the fact that the 2nd Amendment did guarantee individual, not collective, gun ownership rights.

Now, the question of these rights we hold -- is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really inalienable? No, it is not. He in the USA, we commonly lock people up and deprive them of these rights, so they can be taken away. I fact, a convicted felon cannot vote or own guns.

My personal views of these matters and how they may pertain to RKBA in India are as follows:

In the USA, Free Speech is a universally accepted concept, although some don't like the principle of free speech including the right to burn the US flag or the right of corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to a politician's campaign. Sconce free speech is a popular thing, and since many like the idea of freedom of religion. I like to tie those two concepts to RKBA. I like to point out that free speech was a far more successful and dangerous freedom for Hitler than was RKBA (his attempt at revolution failed in Munich). I think that, if people can be trusted with free speech and free religion, they can be trusted with the right to keep and bear arms IN EQUAL MEASURE.

In India, you do not have a 2nd Amendment, but you do have some legal guarantees. I think you must convince people to give their consent -- this is more important than your legal recourses. Even with the 2nd Amerndment here, without the actions of politicians elected to support RKBA and the appointment of judges to uphold it, the laws are nothing more than print on paper.

I think that this means you must convince your neighbors that it is reasonable to own guns, that there is nothing wrong with ownership, and that those of us who own guns are not three headed monsters or wild-eyed fanatics.

I know that it may feel good to pound one's shoe on the table in a social discussion and demand one's gun rights, based on this or that. Generally, it may be best to leave that to the lawyers. I think it is far more important that you convince others that they can feel safe living next door to you, knowing that you own guns. It is far better to convince others that their wives and daughters are safer when they can exercise gun rights than to depend on the police. In other words, I think it is generally best to leave the arguing to the lawyers and politicians. For individuals in our everyday social settings, convincing is more of a win-you-over thing.

Regarding the Indian friends I have here in the USA (which is what I have to go by), some will not touch guns and are totally horrified by the idea of them. Others have varying degrees of opposition, and a few are eager to participate in gun ownership. Many of those in the middle group, I have been able to soften and even get positive reactions from over time. Those who are unalterably opposed (maybe like Mr Sangohee), I leave alone. They will not be convinced in any case, so there is no point in generating more ill will. W do not need uniformity and 100% adherence to our ideas, just a majority!

It is good for XL to bring this up, as it gives us an opportunity to discuss how we can best approach our shared goal. I seriously doubt if anyone has the totally right answers to this problem of how to gain RKBA, whether that person is me, the founding fathers, or anyone else. However, I think that by putting tempers, demands, and strident talk aside, we can turn the public's perception of gun rights around and obtain a more just and free treatment for our position.

I seriously doubt if anyone has the totally right answers to this problem of how to gain RKBA, whether that person is me, the founding fathers, or anyone else. However, I think that by putting tempers, demands, and strident talk aside, we can turn the public's perception of gun rights around and obtain a more just and free treatment for our position.

You make a very valid point, Tim. One that it is easy for all many of us (me included) to forget.

Demanding, pounding on the table and yelling will only make more people not want to listen to our arguments.
Most people can be convinced with sound, logical arguments.
With some people, however, it is like religion, no amount of facts or figures are going to make them change their faith.

As a naturalized citizen, or if he ever worked for the government or served in the armed forces, he will have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. Period.
And I don't think his rights extend to depriving me of mine, just because he sees no need for them.

xl_target wrote:
You make a very valid point, Tim. One that it is easy for all many of us (me included) to forget.

Demanding, pounding on the table and yelling will only make more people not want to listen to our arguments.
Most people can be convinced with sound, logical arguments.
With some people, however, it is like religion, no amount of facts or figures are going to make them change their faith.

I guess I should hasten to say, I am strongly committed to gun rights. So from the "other side's" perspective, I am not going to be the one they can "convert." I have friends on "the other side." There's no point in destroying a friendship over something we each hold strongly. This is true not only in the matter of guns, but also religion and politics, to name a few other things.

The direction I'm coming from is, how can we obtain gun rights in India? Thank goodness, we have people like Abhijeet and others who R eloquent and know web hosting skills, etc. But we are not all like Abhijeet. Each of us has our own talents, skills, friends, acquaintances, and coworkers we rub up against each and every day. I think we can all make a difference, one person at a time. We can all influence somebody. Maybe we can make a comment on a Bollywood movie, like, "I enjoyed the movie, except I didn't like the way they portrayed guns. I enjoy guns, and they should be respected..." Or something like that. W can all find ways to insert our legal, good, moral, and non-threatening appreciation of guns into a conversation every now and then. Sometimes, we'll be met with rejection. But others, we will cause people to think. Those are the opportunities that we must not miss.

In this, as I've said before, women are our key allies. I think that what women have to deal with is oftentimes unfair and lamentable, but even still, they have a HUGE influence on society. Just think of how each one of us want to protect our Wives, daughters (and in my car, granddaughters).

I see us as gun owners, respectable, honest, hardworking -- just like everyone else, except we like guns. Some of us like one aspect of guns and some another, but together, we all represent something many people might like, or at least, will not object to if they are not threatened by us.

Lawyers have to argue. Politicians have to speak strongly. But together, each of us can make a difference being who we are, where we are.

Sanjay wrote novel on Merger and Acquisition a-- he belongs to those yuppie groups who frankly have no idea about real issues on main street ..he should talk about how HP paid $11 billion for autonomy British company -- stick with Mergers Sanjay and the hocus pocus math and funky spreadsheets

I think it's interesting on how everyone wants to change a country's way of doing business because it's not what "They" feel it ought to be. The American Constitution was written by ordinary human beings. With all the flaws that each of us have. It was a compromise to get the thirteen individual states to all agree on a unified way of doing business. It was never thought of as being a perfect document and that is evidenced by the sections that allowed for ammendments. It also ensured that everyone would have a voice and not be dictated to by the Masses or a new "King".

The second ammendment was put in the constitution to allow individuals the ability to resist a tyranical government should one ever raise it's ugly head. And we should not forget in 1792 Congress passed the Militia Act that required that: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.