Two separate Tweets from two Gen-Z influencers.

DARK BRANDON COMES TO LIFE. Joe Biden out on the beach today in aviators & a backward hat. And he looks pretty damn cool for an 80-year-old. pic.twitter.com/j3HIRQeAmV

— Victor Shi (@Victorshi2020) July 31, 2023

Backwards hat, aviators, and relaxation. Joe Biden is pretty cool. pic.twitter.com/JIS3ZmCkdq

— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) July 30, 2023

There is no way two people 21 years if age, both came to the same independent conclusion that an 80-year-old suspected pedophile is “cool” because of his backwards hat and aviator sunglasses.

They clearly got a talking points memo and some money.

Gen-Z is being dragged around by absolute whores on social media.

This is a follow-up to my post New Jersey doesn’t want concealed carry because New Jersey roads suck.

There is an additional point in this section of the Curie County Prosecutor’s Association of New Jersey filed an amicus brief.

It’s in the second part of this screen grab.

New Jersey cops are trigger happy retards.

They can’t process that a driver has a concealed carry permit and is therefore a law abiding citizen and not likely to shoot the cop during a traffic stop.

Their 60 IQ brains only understand that “gun = threat” and will start shooting CCW permit holders.

Just like the canard that concealed carry will turn every fender bender into the gunfight at the OK Corral, the canard that cops will shoot concealed carriers not knowing if they are good guys or bad guys is frequently brought up although I can count on one hand (one finger) the number of times that’s actually happened.

Florida has issued over a million permits and I’ve never heard of a Florida cop blasting a CCW at a traffic stop.

I guess New Jersey cops are particularly stupid.

Given the anecdote about the NYPD officer elsewhere in the Curie County Prosecutor’s Association amicus brief, it very well may be that New Jersey and New York recruit from the same pool of violent retarded apes to make them cops.

“You can’t have concealed carry because our cops are morons with no self control” feels like a pretty unconstitutional admission from government employees, but they made it anyway.

How many times over the years have we heard/read from the Gun Control defenders that the Second Amendment only protect those who are members of the militia? Probably thousands upon thousands.

Everytown’s new Legal eagle comes up with this:

Statement 1: You can only have guns if you belong to the militia.
Statement 2: Militias are illegal.
Conclusion: You have no right to own guns.

I see what you did there. I believe it is not going to fly.

PS: even the Fed Bois and their minions playing dress-up Nazis have rights, including the right to engage in speech that we found offensive.

As I was reading Justice Thomas’s wonderful Bruen opinion, I noticed the phrase “protected by the Second Amendment”. This is something he says throughout the opinion.

When I started looking for it, I found that when legal people were talking about the Second Amendment, they often (always?) said, “Protected by the Second Amendment” or “Second Amendment protected rights”. Over and over we see this language.

Our rights are endowed upon us by our creator. They are not granted to us by the State. If the state can grant us a right, the state can remove that right. Almost all arguments about constitutionality revolves around the absolute values of those rights.

The left argues that my right to free speech ends when they are offended. They call it “hate speech”. The sheep and leftists argue that my right to self-defense ends when I might harm somebody else. Listen to the comments on any shooting, and there will be calls for the punishment of the victim because they “didn’t have to kill.” or they “didn’t have to injure” the attacker.

Can you cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater? ABSOLUTELY! You can even do it if there is no fire. You have an absolute right to do so. On the other hand, if your actions cause harm to others. Real harm, not just emotional duress, then you might be liable for those damages.

I.e., if you cry “Gun!” in a crowded theater, and it causes a panic among the people trying to escape and some are injured or killed, you will be held responsible for those injuries and deaths.

Why “absolute”? Because rights have no value if they are not absolute. I absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t have the right to murder people with arms. This is the balancing of rights. Their right to live vs. my right to keep and bear arms.

The law works at balancing the rights of the people. They fail most of the time. I have a right to my property. He has a right to life. He loses that right when he attacks me to take my property. (Notice that it isn’t just propriety here, there is violence directed at me).

Which takes us back to blowing Mrs. AWA’s mind this morning.

I said something like, “If the Second Amendment was repealed, it would not affect my rights.” Her response was, “But those are your Second Amendment rights, they would be gone.”

“What rights does the Second Amendment give us?”

“The right to keep and bear arms.”

“Nope, try again.”

“Ahhh, the right to have guns and use them”

“Still wrong.”

“It says it right there, the right to keep and bear arms”

“Yes, it does. But the Second Amendment gives us no rights.”

“Umm”

“Read what it says, “the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, this is protection for a preexisting right.”

“No. It says it right there.”

“Our rights come from our creator. We are endowed by them when we are created. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, or armed self-defense, which was endowed upon us by our creator.”

“Because it exists outside the government’s wishes and control, they cannot remove it. They can remove the protections, but not the right.”

“Mind. Blown.”

Mrs. AWA was so conditioned to hear “Second Amendment rights” that she lost sight, if she ever had it, of the simple fact that our rights exist outside the Constitution.

Now go forth and remember, they are Second Amendment protected rights, not given rights.

NYC cabbie savagely beaten on street fumes at ‘horrible system’ and Eric Adams: ‘Tell him die with the shame’

A struggling immigrant cabbie and married dad of two who was savagely beaten by a group of brutes in Midtown told The Post on Friday he’s appalled that two suspects were let go with a slap on the wrist.

Taxi driver Afzal Butt, 60 — who suffered chest, neck and face injuries in the shocking Manhattan caught-on-camera beat-down — blasted New York’s lenient bail-reform laws as a “horrible system” after a pair of his alleged assailants were issued a desk-appearance ticket and allowed to walk free.

“If they’re not going to put them behind bars, this is a horrible system,” fumed the cabbie, who emigrated to the US from Pakistan and has been driving a taxi since 2004. “I am hopeless and helpless with this system.”

Butt said the city is going to hell in a handbasket regarding crime.

“Send the mayor the video and tell him die with the shame,” the cabbie said.

He’s pissed.  I don’t blame him though.

Here is a news report that shows some of the beating.

Five people beat one man and the attackers go virtually unpunished.

The people of New York City need to be able to defend themselves.

That’s why Bruen was decided by SCOTUS the way it was.

That states like New York have failed to make good on that decision is a travesty.

I guess the only conclusion is that New York values its criminals mote than its law abiding, tax paying citizens.

After the Bruen decision, pretty much all the may issue states freaked out and drafted laws that made shall issue so impossibly onerous as to make it worse than may issue.

New Jersey was one if those states.

The legislature made so many places in New Jersey “sensitive locations’ where concealed carry was prohibited, that it made the state effectively one big gun free zone.

The state is being sued, and the case is Koons v. Platkin.

The Curie County Prosecutor’s Association of New Jersey filed an amicus brief with the court to give their justification why citizens shouldn’t carry guns.

It’s a hoot.

The reason you shouldn’t be able to carry in New Jersey is that the Garden State’s roads and highways are congested dog shit and New Jersey drivers are insane assholes.

It doesn’t matter how good of a person you are, once you experience New Jersey traffic, you’re going to start murdering other drivers because they are insufferable.

Case in point, this amazing anecdote.

See?

How can you, ordinary citizen, be trusted with a gun on New Jersey public roads, when they are so bad, and the other drivers so terrible, that it drove one of New York’s finest into a gun waving rage monster?

You won’t be able to resist the temptation to start blasting other New Jerseyans once you have to deal with them in public.

“People can’t carry guns because everyone is an asshole and the roads are shit and they’ll kill each other on non-stop road rage incidents.”

To be fair, this is probably accurate, but I’m amazed that they would admit to it in court.

This is a follow-up to my post Even if they charged him, they wouldn’t get a conviction.

Texas stolen car owner is a ‘vigilante, not a hero’ after he tracked down and shot dead the man who allegedly took his vehicle – claims the suspected thief’s brother

The brother of a suspected car thief shot dead by the man whose car he allegedly stole has slammed his sibling’s killer, arguing he is a ‘vigilante’, not a hero, for his actions.

The robbery victim discovered his car had been stolen from a Texas shopping center parking lot, but managed to track the vehicle down to a second lot nearby.

He walked up to the vehicle to find a man and a woman sat in the cab, and drew his weapon, ordering the pair to get out of the car and wait for police to arrive.

But the stolen car victim was hit with a bullet when the male thief took a gun of his own out from his waistband and opened fire.

Avoiding serious injury, the vehicle’s owner returned fire, shooting the car thief dead.

But now the car thief’s brother has expressed his anger, arguing that the car owner should never have drawn his gun in the first place and complained ‘my mum, my family, we all have to suffer now’.

‘Whether my brother was wrong or right, he had a gun pointed at him. I guess he took it upon himself to defend himself. The guy who shot him is a vigilante, not a hero.

‘A vehicle is not worth taking someone’s life, I don’t care what kind of car it is. You don’t take the law into your own hands. Now my mom, my family, we all have to suffer and just deal with it.’

Police meanwhile put the shooting down to a simple case of self-defense, arguing that robbery victims have every right to try to find their stolen property and that the car’s owner only shot the thief after he himself was subjected to gunfire.

In every one of these cases, where some criminal gets killed by a CCW, the family cries over the loss of their kin, the family can go fuck themselves.

The family here overlooks the fact that their brother was willing to and trued to kill a man to steal his truck.

The thief shot the truck owner to avoid being arrested.  He was being held for the police.

That’s why the police determined it was the truck owner, not the thief, who acted in self defense.

The family can suffer, because their brother almost made another family suffer.

These people are human garbage.