Security Counter Measures Needed?

As I've explained before, my grasp of post-Jurassic technology is weak at best, so forgive me if the following is a non-issue.

A month ago, I added a site meter to this blog. I've recently noticed when a referring link comes from another blog's site meter, it allows me into their stats--and then lets me move around within, to see things like their daily averages, where people come to their sites from, etc.

Is this normal? I would have thought this would be considered intrusive.

If it's a glitch, I'd think the respective site meter providers would want to know. If it's just normal, and all of you who have progressed beyond the Stone Age know all about it, in the words of Rosanna Rosanadanna, "Never mind."

Is there some setting I (and apparently others, and some of the blogs I'm getting into seem to be pretty sophisticated) should know about to prevent this from happening?

I guess what I don't understand is why do I need a front-end userid and password if just anyone with a stat counter can saunter in through the back door?

Educational feedback would be appreciated.

WTF?

Acronym Finder can help you define all those pesky acronyms.

Well, almost all:

"Sorry, BATFU was not found in the database."

Would You Like a Regular Burger or a Whopper?

I found this old quote on the website of my favorite gun control organization. It's a good reminder for those of us who remember it, and a good illustration for those who haven't seen it before, of the mindset we face with many in the judiciary, including the Supreme Court:

"If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment... This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud', on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
- Warren Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Parade Magazine, 1/14/90

"Guns That Killed Presidents"

Now there’s a headline that’s sure to interest Homeland Security’s electronic surveillance spooks.

GUNS Magazine is celebrating its 50th anniversary by making its first issues available as free .pdf downloads. They post each mag for the month it corresponds with. The April 1955 issue is now online.

Ginsburg's Judicial Jihad

It’s scary enough that “Justice [Darth Vader] Ginsburg of the Supreme Court embraced the practice of consulting foreign legal decisions on Friday, rejecting the argument from conservatives that United States law should not take international thinking into account.”

A lot of people are jumping on that, and rightfully so.

But the most disturbing statement she made seems to have been overshadowed in all the “international law” hoopla”: "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

In other words, she is of the mind that we have a “living Constitution,” with all that that implies.

As Walter Williams instructs us, “Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be ‘living’? Depending on ‘evolving standards,’ maybe my two pair could beat your flush.”

Another disturbing factoid: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ...described Justice Ginsberg as 'a great and good friend.'"

Ear of the Beholder: Episode Two

My kid sister reminds me of another mondegreen from days gone by:

Sly and the Family Stone’s “It’s a Family of Hair.”

In the Ear of the Beholder

FreedomSight points us to a website for mis-heard lyrics.

I haven't thought about this in years, but back when Evita came out, the TV commercial had her on the balcony singing "Don't cry for me Argentina," with Che responding "You were supposed to have been immortal..."

A woman at work was singing "You were supposed to have been in Baltimore."

Close Your Books, Please, We're Going to Have a Pop Quiz

Dan Baron of The Northwest Indiana Times has created a multiple choice quiz designed to further spook the flock into fearing an armed citizenry.

I wonder how Dan would do on this quiz?
_______________________________________

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF GUN CONTROL:

"No One But the Authorities Should Have Assault Weapons"

If these people had assault weapons, they would probably (check all that apply):

___ rob liquor stores
___ engage in drive-by shootings
___ leave them lying around where their kids could find them
___ blow away motorists during traffic disputes
___ go on schoolyard rampages
___ accidentally kill friends and family members
___ none of the above

Might there be a moral, historically justified need for "non-sporting" arms in the hands of "average citizens?" The next time someone tells you we need to ban "assault weapons," ask them to take this test. Why not send a copy of it to the politicians who represent you and see how they answer?

[Adapted from my poster that originally appeared on GunTruths.com]

Find-A-Human

QuickBase lets us speak to a real hooded minion of the soulless machine with their IVR Phone System Shortcuts.

"He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet! He's coming to the closet!"

The Smallest Minority presents a chilling real-life account of how dialing 911 and not being equipped and prepared to defend yourself results in tragedy.

He Walks the Night...

...He hungers. And he's coming for you!

So what's the solution? The typical politician might try making it illegal to carry a crucifix without a permit. We could also force everyone to wait 5 days and go through a background check before allowing them to buy a wooden stake. Or how about passing a law restricting people to one vial of holy water a month? If that doesn't work, we can come up with an arbitrary list of mallet features and ban those which don't comply. And just for good measure, let's require everyone buying garlic to register their purchase and leave a thumbprint. If this seems unreal to you, if you can think of no good reason to give the creatures of the night an advantage over their victims, then congratulations! You've just exposed the dark myth of gun control to the light of reason. Isn't it time we drove a stake through the heart of the gun control argument--for good?

[Adapted from my poster that originally appeared on GunTruths.com]

"Is the Joyce Foundation at it again?"

"Just saw a note that the Fordham Univ. Law Review is coming out with a symposium issue on the Second Amendment -- strangely, without a single recognizable pro-individual rights author (and almost without recognizable authors at all).

"Aha, thought I -- is the Joyce Foundation at it again? Sure enough, a Google quickly turned this up: 'The papers and commentaries presented at the conference will be published in the Fordham Law Review in Fall 2004. The conference was funded by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation.'"

David Hardy's new weblog "Of Arms & the Law" offers some of the most intelligent and insightful commentary to be found--it should become a "must read" for serious 2A activists.

The site also lists Dave Kopel as a "Major Contributor," but so far, it seems pure Hardy.

“AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.”

Our anonymous comment poster in “Microstamping-An Alternative View” does not believe Assemblyman Paul Koretz’s AB352, requiring semiautomatic handguns to emply microstamp identifiers is a “gun control” measure.

Remember, according to the bill’s language, “This bill would…expand the definition of unsafe handgun to include semiautomatic pistols that are not [so] designed and equipped…”

Gun owners have particular reason to concern themselves with any firearm-related bills proposed by Mr. Koretz. From his biography:

“While on the [West Hollywood] City Council, Koretz played a key role on many high profile issues, foremost among them gun control issues. In 1988, Paul sponsored a ban on military-style assault weapons, which built momentum for a subsequent statewide ban. In 1996, Koretz co-sponsored the City's ban on ‘Saturday Night Specials.’ West Hollywood was the first city to enact such a ban, which survived various legal assaults by the NRA. Koretz also sponsored an ordinance limiting handgun purchases to one gun per month, to cut the resale of guns on the black market.”

Let’s examine his “Saturday Night Special” ban. Here was his reasoning behind it:

“Because the inferior quality of the alloys these parts are made of, the gun cannot reliably contain its own ballistic power. This means they are chambered to fire high pressure ammunition without the reliable ability to contain the pressures generated by the force of a bullet leaving the gun's chamber and barrel.”

Furthermore, that bill deemed that “as a result of inferior craftsmanship, Saturday Night Specials are not sufficiently accurate or reliable...as a...means of personal protection...they are not well suited for this purpose."

I took exception to that claim a few years back, but the bottom line is, Mr. Koretz has a history of banning guns he deems “unsafe.”

Now he wants to codify into state law the claim that semiauto handguns that don’t employ microstamping are “unsafe.”

And we’re supposed to give credence to the anonymous comment that “AB352 [which will ban the sale of all semiauto handguns in the state of California that Mr. Koretz & Co. claim are 'unsafe'] is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.”

Microstamping-An Alternative View

Here's somebody who thinks microstamping is a good idea:

Anonymous said...
Microstamping technology gave the forensic community something to counter the disasterous ballistic RBID idea. Dr. Tuelleners of CA DOJ was the catalyst on killing ballistic imaging. He also countered with the idea that ballistic id tagging, the technology called microstamping as an alternative. This wedge issue saved 100's thousands of legal firearms owners from being logged into a criminal database. The reason it did this, was that the anti-gun movement who wanted an RBID system, ie firearm registration, had to defend ballistic imaging. In essence Dr. Tuellenes got the anti-gun industry to shine a light on the technology, which led to testing of the ballistic imaging technology and reviews of its effectiveness.

As for the effectiveness of microstamping, it will provide the forensic community a good tool to plot and track illegal trafficing of firearms. Since the technology creates a code, it makes it easier to share between state and federal law enforcement. There is no need for chain of custody issues, since they are sharing codes, not physical evidence.

By identifying the firearms make, model and date of manufacture, the forensic experts can determine hot spots for trafficing and identify those sources. Straw purchases are a big issue and the forensic community needs new tools. As for impact to the industry, insignificant in comparison to ballistic imaging which costs as follows:(Maryland Gun Owner $20.00/gun, State cost:~$30.00/gun to input into IBIS (tax payer cost). NY is more expensive.

The cost of Ballistic ID Tagging is between $8.00 and $0.50, for custom firearms manufacturers and high volume manufacturers respectively, this range is due to access to the equipment and volume of firearms produced. There are 8 shops in the country that can provide the service.

AB352 is pro-forensic, not anti-gun.

Zero Tolerance Insanity and Corruption

A young man gets thrown in the slammer and booted out of the government indoctrination kamp for a drawing he made two years earlier. His kid brother found the sketchbook in the closet, and another kid on the schoolbus reported the "offending" picture.

As outrageous and ludicrous as that is, another story involves the black robe who agreed with this madness every step of the way.

This is not the first time that U.S. District Judge Frank J. Polozola , who determined the drawing constituted a threat, has been noted to exhibit paranoia.

A year ago, he "took control of an accident case involving his car and issued an order transferring evidence about his medical condition to a sealed federal court file."

Another case he ruled on was challenged "because the judge admitted in his accident suit to being impaired and to using Oxy-Contin, a pain medication, in that period.

"In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a 'serious physical injury' that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, [lawyers] wrote in filings, the judge engaged in 'erratic, even paranoid' behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed."

When it looked like those records might be unsealed, "Judge Polozola ordered the evidence in his accident case transferred to federal court and sealed," and get this, it was done at the request of federal prosecutors "to avoid 'irreparable injury to a national interest.'"

These are the people who impose "Zero Tolerance" on a supposedly free people--and expect us to tolerate it.

I'd Like to Thank the Academy...

WarOnGuns wins an award of sorts from FishOrMan.

Gun Control's Best Friend

"The slaughter, rape and torment of the citizens of Darfur would end if humanitarian aid included guns."--Dimitri Vassilaros

Read and share this compelling article.

As the good folks at JPFO have been trying to tell everyone, "gun control" enables genocide.

I learned about the Vassilaros piece from Alphecca.

Sarah, Jane ‘n Me

Or How I Almost Got Arrested For Trying to Ask a Question

[This originally appeared in a newsletter I was producing for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Members Council, 2nd Amendment West, Vol. 5, No.4, September/October 1996. I'm dusting it off because it's never appeared on the internet, the example of imperial arrogance it illustrates still holds true, and because the question of just who has the authority to declare someone a "journalist" is still being usurped.]

HARMAN AND BRADY STIFLE FREE SPEECH AT "PRESS CONFERENCE"

Shamelessly exploiting the memorial site of slain Manhattan Beach police officer Martin Ganz, Congresswoman Jane Harman and Handgun Control, Inc.'s Sarah Brady staged a "rally" on Sept. 5 to malign gun owners and to spread further distortions about your right to keep and bear arms.

Ostensibly held to announce Ms. Brady's support of Ms. Harman, the event quickly degenerated into a blatant propaganda festival, replete with a mock check from the NRA to Harman's opponent, Susan Brooks, and a display table full of "assault weapons." Both Jane and Sarah then went on to speak out against gun rights by decrying the need for hunters to use "weapons of war" (!), by somehow holding us responsible for the criminal actions of, er, criminals, and by trumpeting the absurd claim that the Brady Act has stopped over 100,000 felons from purchasing guns.

Fortunately, pro-gunners from the South Bay and Westside got wind of the event, and showed up in substantial numbers to protest both the anti-gun rights lies being promulgated, as well as Rep. Harman's abysmal attendance record (she has the worst in the California delegation, being "AWOL" from her duties about one day out of ten- imagine what your boss would do if you had an absenteeism rate of 10%).

Not content to repeal the Second Amendment, Ms. Harman and Ms. Brady also tried to squelch that pesky First, by not allowing questions from the crowd. That's right, public figures holding a public forum on public property would not entertain the concerns of the public! They would only take questions from the "media," and if we had any private concerns, they would have to be asked afterwards, one-on-one (i.e., out of earshot of the crowd, to avoid public exposure of their falsehoods). And knowing the media's antagonism to our rights, we're supposed to trust their objectivity?

I attempted to ask a question anyway, challenging Ms. Brady to disclose the author of the study resulting in the claim that 100,000 felons have been denied guns due to the Brady Law, to reveal the source of her data, the statistical methods used to collect and tabulate the data, and to publish the study and its conclusions in their entirety for peer scrutiny.

An unidentified man in a suit approached me from a group of Jane-and-Sarah-loving law enforcement honchos, and opined that what I was doing was "not free speech."(!!) He told me that questions were reserved for the press.

I responded that I was editor of this modest journal. He told me I did not have "legitimate credentials."

I countered (loudly, so that I would have witnesses) that I was not aware that I needed a permit to exercise my First Amendment rights under the Constitution, and challenged him to cite the law requiring a citizen to get permission to ask a question at a public event.

Seeing that his attempt at intimidation had failed, he turned around and walked back to the cadre of police officials he had emerged from. Still, I could not help feeling that his tactics were worthy of the KGB, and probably portend the shape of things to come if those who love control more than liberty prevail.

Refreshingly, challenger Susan Brooks held a press conference of her own following the Harman/Brady travesty, but one with two distinctive differences; anyone there was welcome to ask any question they wanted to, and (surprise!) the tv cameras somehow didn't make it to the Brooks event. It would seem the "credentialed" media, like my unidentified friend, aren't really very interested in presenting both sides of the issues. Surprise, indeed.

BREAKING NEWS: Feinstein Arrested After Gun Mishap

Senator Injures Multiple Constituents in Accidental Discharge--Reportedly Challenges Marshals: "Do You Know Who I Am?"

"WASHINGTON (DC)- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has been charged with negligent discharge of a firearm after wounding 3 constituents in a town hall meeting Thursday evening. The Senator was displaying an assault weapon to argue for a renewed federal ban when the weapon suddenly went off.

"Agents of the US Marshal's Service forcibly rushed a distraught and screaming Senator from the auditorium.

"'If this can happen to an experienced gun handler like Senator Feinstein,' an unidentified aide told the crowd, 'it shows the need for heightened legislation.'"

Read complete story.

Me & my AK-47

Josie Roberts buys a WASR-10.

She really doesn't like the fact that she can.

"Six days after Watts was murdered, four days after I applied for a driver’s license, one hour after entering the store and five minutes after a criminal record check, I legally owned a semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle," she writes.

Horrors!

Josie, I can buy gasoline, fertilizer and box cutters in a lot less time. [And, yeah, I'm aware of the disputes about OKC and 9-11.]

You can't ban everything that's potentially dangerous, Josie.

Except for balconies. Ban them.

[Thanks to SayUncle for the tip on this story.]