And in Cleveland, they don’t get none, either. Hey, teachers left them kids alone.

UPDATE: Venemous Kate has moor.

Wow. I mean, just … wow. Like all the other gunnies I’ve been cautiously optimistic about the Heller case but never for a minute (OK, maybe for a minute) that they’d go as far as to guarantee a right to keep and bear bazookas. The best part was seeing Justice Stevens as the lone dissenter on that part of the opinion, with no one signing on to the no-rights view. Hey ACLU/ABA/Brady Bunch: can you say “pwn3ed?” Or given that this kick in the gut came 2 months earlier than expected, should that be “pre-pwn3ed?” It almost looks as though the Supremes made a few minor, stylistic edits to the GOA brief and called it an opinion. Well done, GOA, your 30+ years of no compromise have finally paid off!

To you suckers who have sunk tens of thousands of dollars in pre-1986 machine guns that are now worth barely more than their semiautomatic counterparts, I feel your pain. Sort of. As for me, I figure that with the Supreme Friggin’ Court so squarely in our camp, we won’t be needing these guys anymore, except maybe as a social club to meet a few other shooters. Certainly no need to waste any time or money going here or here, unless you want to meet some cool people like me.

UPDATE: Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me.

Apparently, you can own a STAG-15 in Cali, as Jerry Moonbeam never got around to adding that receiver to the bad boy list and lost his authority to add new ones in 2007. You can even get a Hello Kitty one. Heh.

Hat tip: Uncly-Wuncly.

Iowahawk does the impossible, and provides a brilliant parody of the unparodiable.

Is it still considered “animal abuse” when the animal is the one doing the abusing?

If you ever run out of silly things to say when you’d like to swear but can’t, check out this handy-dandy list of minced oaths.

Via Law.com, every responsible adult should obtain Sexual Consent. Not safe for work.

Patterico beat me to the punch. Glenn Reynolds, who proudly coined the phrase “fair-weather federalism,” now lives up to it.

UPDATE: Reynolds dismisses the charge as “silly,” citing the Fourteenth Amendment proscription against depriving citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law. O-kay. In the column in which he originally coined the term (linked above), Reynolds disingenuously decried the federal government’s practice of “regulating science,” which is really just a cute way of saying “funding science, but making such funding contingent on adherence to certain restrictions Glenn Reynolds doesn’t like.” So what exactly is Reynolds’s position now? That any Congress that fully exercises its tax and spend power runs afoul of the spirit (albeit not the letter) of federalism, while a Congress that fully exercises its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment does not? That would be an odd combination of views, but possibly defensible on some level if Reynolds applied it with any consitency. He doesn’t, though. When Terri Schiavo activists, a.k.a. “pro-tubists,” made precisely the same argument under the Fourteenth Amendment concerning the impending starvation death of Ms. Schiavo, Reynolds lobbed the f-word (phrase?) at them, too:

There’s also a lot of contradiction lately. After talking about small government and the rule of law, Republicans overwhelmingly supported a piece of legislation intended to influence a single case, that of Terri Schiavo. As former Solicitor General Charles Fried observes:

“In their intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter, Republicans in Congress and President Bush have, in a few brief legislative clauses, embraced the kind of free-floating judicial activism, disregard for orderly procedure and contempt for the integrity of state processes that they quite rightly have denounced and sought to discipline for decades.”

I think he’s right. As with Bill Hobbs, quoted below, I don’t have an opinion on what should happen to Terry Schiavo — though given the rather large numbers of judges who have looked at this case over the years I’d be especially reluctant to interfere. Can they all be deranged advocates of a “culture of death?” But regardless of the merits, Congress’s involvement in this case seems quite “unconservative” to me, at least if one believes in rules of general application. Florida has a general law, and it’s been followed. That people don’t like the result isn’t a reason for unprecedented Congressional action, unless results are all that matter.

Apparently, using the Fourteenth Amendment narrowly to prevent an intentionally killing that Reynolds supports is “fair-weather federalism,” but using it broadly to prevent a few accidental killings Reynolds opposes is not. The cynic in me says Reynolds is just another “what I like is constitutional, and what I don’t like is unconstitutional” kind a guy. But maybe not. Maybe it’s just a question of which Congress does your dirty work. If a Republican Congress in 2002 limited research spending and another Republican Congress attempts to federalize Michael Schiavo’s God-given right to starve his wife to death, that’s fair-weather federalism. But if the incoming, Democratic Congress passes Reynolds’s power-grab, no one can accuse them of fair-weather federalism. They never claimed to be federalist at all.

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has one member - and it’s not Joe Lieberman. Heh.

Q: Where is FoxNews definitely not headquartered?

A: Here. Minced oaths, such as “boo freaking hoo,” are still allowed, however.

[This post has been posted in compliance with the Silly Names Act. Any resemblance to real cities, towns or communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia is real and not a coincidence.]