Mind Wars: Raising Healthy White Children in a Subversive Environment

Mind Wars: Raising Healthy White Children in a Subversive Environment
by Christian Miller
Source: The Occidental Observer

Above all, a White child must be raised to exhibit White behavior: to strive towards truth, honor, and a virtuous life.  Exemplary White men and White women from the past and present provide guidance for behavior expected in the future.  Familiarity with admirable White role models will help protect a developing mind from poisonous, nonsensical, cowardly, and traitorous ideas.  The alternative is the loss of yet another young White mind and spirit, overwhelmed from all sides in today’s twisted and subversive society.

Popular music and professional sports are teeming with African themes of criminality, cruelty, misogyny, egotism, and debased and debauched behavior.  Television, movies, and advertising are infected with a virulent strain of anti-White propaganda.  Academia, mainstream news, politicians, and pundits provide a persistent message of White guilt, racial nihilism, and shrill condemnation of any manifestation of White pride or White identity.  Jewish ownership and control of the media is so pervasive that Jewish media figures feel secure enough to boast thereof.  Yet to an untrained observer, the subversion towards Jewish interests or anti-White propaganda can be difficult to spot because it is designed to permeate the unconscious brain.  The viewer, or victim, is supposed to feel and absorb, not think and reflect.  Conscientious White parents must prepare their children with the analytical tools to see through the façade.

An inert consumer, or a passive viewer, will unconsciously accept the bald-faced lies and distortions via the path of the least resistance.  Floating down the river in a stupefied trance is easier than swimming upstream against the tide of brainwashing.  Responsible White parents must be vigilant and tirelessly optimistic while pursuing their most important endeavor—raising the next generation of the White race.

The dark and subversive forces behind cultural Marxism and anti-White propaganda work incessantly to poison young minds with destructive and stultifying ideas.  Children will be immersed in a swirl of dusky faces in mainstream entertainment, carefully choreographed to mask unpleasant truths.  Doctors, lawyers, judges, generals, heroes, scientists, and positions of authority or expertise will be overwhelmingly casted as Black, mestizo, or other non-White actors, in stark contrast to reality.  The message is clear: the absence of an overwhelming presence of non-Whites in prestigious positions (i.e. reality) means that racism is afoot, and race-based social engineering or wealth redistribution is the solution.  Be careful to point out these distortions to a young child and encourage the child to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Image from AltRight. Caption: Black Computer Nerd (Jaleel White), Black President (Blair Underwood), Black God (Morgan Freeman) http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/negrophilia/

Data regarding racial differences in Bar Exam passage rates, medical board scores, high school and college dropout rates, SAT/GRE/GMAT/MCAT scores, incarceration rates, and the relative numbers of minorities in positions requiring a high IQ are readily available via books, data studies, or Internet research.  The empirical argument of racial disparities in achievement is quite easy to advance, which is why a steady stream of false propaganda is used to distort the truth.  How many Black computer science or mathematics professors exist compared to the Black population?  How many Black astronauts, Rhodes Scholars, or jet pilots are there?  How many mestizo neurosurgeons, composers, or chemical engineers have risen to prominence?  By direct contrast, what is the Black and mestizo share of the prison population?  Be sure to provide the child with a firm grounding in the relative achievements, behavioral tendencies, and capabilities of the races.  Otherwise, the mainstream media will provide incredibly dangerous distortions, such as Black docility or passivity.

Be sure to provide an extremely important research project to the child—a comparison of racial crime rates.  Parents who love their children will not dare to hide the reality of racial crime rates because ignorance in this area can be fatal.  Perpetrators of rape, robbery, assault, and murder are not distributed evenly among the races, and White children must be aware.  Every White child must know the color of crime.  It is tragic to allow a White child to learn about interracial crime “the hard way.”  Instill healthy racial instincts, or rather, provide an environment in which these natural instincts will not be repressed.

Of paramount importance is a strong sense of White identity, pride, and duty.  Each White person is an unbroken link to the past and the future of the White race.  Remind the child of the sacrifices made, hardships endured, and trials faced by countless White ancestors.  Inform the child that each prior generation made the wise and just decision to seek a mate who could continue the lineage of the White race.  Make it clear that to break this chain of life is to spit upon the grave of every White ancestor, and to burn the bridge towards a White future, cursing all future progeny to a confused life of diluted identity.  When the child is mature enough to understand scientific concepts, provide a solid foundation of genetics and heredity.

White phenotypes are as delicate as they are beautiful.  Reinforce the idea that the beauty of the White race is largely a recessive trait.  Whites are the only race to produce the full spectrum of colors: blond, red, brown, grey, and black hair and blue, green, grey, and brown eyes.  Note that all other races are uniform and homogenous by comparison, with monochromatic hair and eye color.  Reinforce the concept that a White person breeding with a non-White person creates a non-White, invariably.  Only a White man and a White woman can produce a White child.  Miscegenation precludes the possibility of producing a White child, forever damning the future generations to a darker reality.  White genes are precious and must be preserved and guarded carefully.

Point out that when a Black man violates the sanctity of a blond White woman’s womb, the result will be a mulatto—a person that the same Black man would not find as beautiful as the blond White woman.  Hence, miscegenation demonstrates its own underlying depravity—destroying what one loves or admires.  The singer Seal and the golfer Tiger Woods spawned nappy-headed mulattos that look nothing like the beautiful White women who bore them.  The White genes came to a screeching halt the moment they intermixed with African or mixed-blood genes.  The resulting offspring are dark-skinned and broad-nosed, inheriting none of the aesthetic delicacy of their White beauty-queen mothers.  A visible shame of cosmic proportions follows the squandering of fine White genes.

Parents may worry that the child will fall prey to the lies of “race is a social construct” or “race is only skin deep.”  Rejoice, White parents—the mountainous mass of evidence on this subject makes these fallacies easily disproven.  A quick study of racial differences in bone density, fertility, prognathism, skull shape, susceptibility to various diseases, or rates of maturation will expose that race is more than skin deep and has a profound genetic significance.

To truly enforce the importance of racial distinctions, it is vital to introduce the child to racial differences in IQ, brain size, aggression, personality disorders, altruism, and sexual promiscuity.  The mental and moral differences are most important to explain why some races fail so often and represent outrageous shares of the violent criminal population.  A young child can quickly understand that painting a Black man white does not make him a White man.  An older, more mature young man can dive into the complexities of racial differences in intelligence, criminality, personality, and time preferences.  Eventually it will become apparent that the best retort for “race is a social construct” is “society is a racial construct.”  Society, civilization, and nation must be understood as historical expressions of racial stock.

History in public schools is taught as a meaningless mishmash of competing cultures, devoid of racial importance, coalescing in the modern age of enlightenment wherein everyone “realized” that race is nothing and environment is everything.  The enemies of the White race make it so easy to refute their pernicious ideas!  Kill two birds with one stone by teaching the child both accurate world history and the skills necessary to test a thesis by alternative hypotheses.  Ask the child why, if environment is so important, sub-Saharan Africans dwelled in a blessed abundance of natural resources, literally standing on diamonds in some cases, yet never invented the wheel or written language.  Spark the child’s imagination and hypothetical ability by proposing a world where the Africans in Haiti are magically replaced by Scandinavians, or Japanese.  Ponder whether Haiti would be different in a decade and most importantly, ask why.  Point out the stark contrast between the French-ruled Haiti, “Jewel of the Caribbean,” and the Black-controlled Haiti, embarrassment of the Western Hemisphere.  A curious child with a healthy appetite for truth will be able to apply these simple lessons to refute the fallacious explanations for disparities of civilization and culture.  As more and more examples come to light, the child will gain an important lesson—the effect of human race on human civilization.

Provide specific examples of civilizations that crumbled as their White genetic founding stocks were slowly destroyed through miscegenation with subjugated, absorbed, or enslaved foreigners: Persia, Greece, Rome, Egypt, and India.  “Browning out” is a concept every White child must understand.  India provides a long-view demonstration of the evils of miscegenation.  Teach the child about the Aryan imposition of the caste system in ancient India.  Note the present condition of the very-brown India, where the caste system has failed, which stands as a testament to the iron rule of race.

Bring the child to a museum to view artifacts of the early Egyptian dynasties, ruled by White pharaohs such as the red-haired Ramses II.  Review the tablets that colorfully depict White Egyptians conquering and enslaving Black Nubians and swarthy Semites.  Be sure to find a picture of the Pharaoh’s walking stick or scepter with Black and Arab heads attached and the sandals with images of Nubians and Semites on the soles.  Of course, these items signify the proud White Egyptian ruler holding the foreign enemies in his hand and treading upon them as he walked.  The racial distinctions in the early glories of Egypt are crystal-clear in the archaeology.  Next examine the art and relics of the later dynasties, which demonstrate a definite Black and Arab admixture in the royal bloodlines.  Note the coincidence of a failing Egyptian empire with the advent of half-blood princes.  Query the young child if the election of the mulatto Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States of America in 2008 signaled an analogous point in American history.  The rise and fall of civilizations can be one of the most exciting and enriching ways to learn about the importance of race.  A White child must understand his or her special place in the continuation of society, civilization, and nation.

From a young age, a White child must be instilled with a sense of racial duty to the past, present, and future.  White women must know that to bear and raise White children is a glorious honor, not something to be ashamed of or to dread.  Never allow any family member to partake in the denigration of housewives or domestic activity.  Mothers and other women must be properly protected, cherished, and celebrated as the guardians of the next generation, the keys to the future of the White race.  White men must understand that duty will mold their decisions in life, inspiration will spur their creations, and honor will guide their desires.  A White man accepts responsibility without question, provides for his family, protects his loved ones and friends, rises to all challenges, and proudly serves as a soldier-at-arms in the unending march of the White race throughout the history of this world and beyond.  Aryan means “noble” or “of noble blood.”  The White men and White women of the future must be true Aryans in blood, mind, body, and spirit.

Read Full Post »

The Right to Bear Arms, Germany, 1928-1945

Ever seen this misleading poster?

The first and last time I encountered it was in Gene Berkman’s “Libertarian” bookstore, “Rennaissance Books,” in Riverside, California. Guess who designed it? The J.P.F.O.– Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.. Now, what might their strategy have been if not to deliberately mislead Americans who value their Constitutional rights? This is a clever tactic to deflect deserved attention from those at the fore of firearms legislation in this country, and to re-direct any legitimate hostility toward their historical enemies. Below, however, I have included factual information which they would prefer you never knew, and which they are so confident that most of you would never think to independently seek out or research. Truth empowers. -W.

Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
by Dr. William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

* The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.

* The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.

* Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.

* At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

* Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.

It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance.

After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

* Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]

* Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.

* A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.

* Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]

* Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.

* A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
1. persons under the age of 18 years;
2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

* The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.
That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws reproduced here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

Read Full Post »

U.S./Jewish Gun Control Legislation, 1968-Present

Photo above is of Charles/Chuck Schumer [see list below] . Apparently it is acceptable for Jewish folk to defend themselves, their families, their rights, and their property– just not the rest of us. Oh yes, the greatest gun-grabbers in U.S. history are now, and have always been, quite Jewish. Is it hateful to relay the facts if they aren’t especially flattering to some in this regard? Well, “gun control” in the United States is as Jewish as our Liberal and self-destructive immigration policies.

U.S./Jewish Gun Control Legislation, 1968-Present

Emanuel Celler

1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Rep. Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R. 17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Sen. Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Zionist[1].

Howie Metzenbaum

1988: Senate bill S. 1523 is sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.

1988: Senator Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill — S. 2180 — to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”

Herb Kohl

1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.1993: Senate bill S.653 is sponsored by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.

Charles/Chuck Schumer [please view the documentary “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” if you care to know what a despicable lowlife this “man” is…]

February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Rep. Charles Schumer [2].1994: Senator Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Rep. Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Dianne Feinstein

September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Schumer.

Arlene Specter

1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.

Frank Launtenberg

September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.1997: Senate bill S. 54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Dianne Feinstein and Senator [Hatch], among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense

Barbara Boxer

January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.January, 1999: Senator Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would to require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.February, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.

Senator Abe Levin

March, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.March, 1999: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.May, 2000: Senate bill S. 2515, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000, is submitted by Senators Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Schumer. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.

January, 2001: Senate bill S.25, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001, is sponsored by Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].

May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban is scheduled to expire in September, 2004.

October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin [also Jewish] and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

March, 2005: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

March, 2005: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

Read Full Post »