Pro-Second Amendment supporters dying — conspiracy or coincidence? *UPDATED*

[UPDATE:  The magical Chukker left a comment with a link to this New York Times article, which is precisely the article I meant and that I incorrectly tied to The New Yorker.]

I stopped taking The New Yorker seriously many years ago.  Even before I crossed the political Rubicon, I started finding its articles, especially Toobin’s legal analyses, silly.  Nevertheless, there was one article that stuck in my mind. Unfortunately, I only remember the overarching principles in the article, rather than the salient facts that would allow me to locate it again.

The story began by telling how elderly Finnish twin brothers were killed within an hour of each other, with each having been struck down by a car while riding a bicycle.  The whole thing sounded highly suspicious, until one started looking at further details:  the men always rode bicycles, they were riding during a busy time on a road shared with heavy traffic, and there was a snowstorm taking place, severely affecting visibility.  Rather than it being the unlikely case of twins dying in the same way at the same time, it became the likely case of bicyclists being hit by cars while biking on a main road during a white-out.

The article then switched to the fact that several scientists involved in some controversial project had died within a few months of each other, some of them from natural causes, some from bizarre accidents, and one by suicide.  Rumors started being bandied about to the effect that the scientists were being killed by government forces (I forget which government) to ensure their silence.

The bulk of the article, if I remember correctly, talked about the way in which the human mind is programmed to find patterns in things.  We have to.  Otherwise, we’d be incapable of making sense of all the data that constantly surrounds us.  We filter out a great deal, and what we do see or learn, we try to fit into larger patterns.  Usually, this innate ability helps us out.  Sometimes, though, it causes us to see connections where none actually exist.

You understand this dichotomy if you think about the movie A Beautiful Mind.  When Nash is in genius mode, he finds a legitimate pattern that all have missed.  When he’s in schizophrenic mode, though, he sees patterns where none exist.

This long intro is necessary because a friend sent me a fascinating article about the recent deaths of two people, both of whom were important in the Second Amendment community.  John Noveske manufactured exquisite rifles and was killed in a car accident within days of his having posted a long Facebook article noting a common thread binding all of the mass killers going back to Columbine — they were all taking psychiatric drugs.  Hmmm.

Keith Ratliff was huge popular on YouTube for his gun related videos.  He was recently found dead on a lonely country road, with a bullet in his head.  Hmmm again.

The same article posits that these two men’s deaths are not a coincidence but are, instead, part of a concerted effort to silence those willing to speak out for gun rights:

Sure, a car crash involving John Noveske could be a coincidence. It could also be a coincidence that no video footage has been released from Sandy Hook showing Adam Lanza carrying any rifle whatsoever.

It might also be a coincidence that Dianne Feinstein just happened to have her detailed gun confiscation bill ready to release immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might also be a total coincidence that according to, the United Way Sandy Hook donation support page was created on December 11, 2012 — a full three days before the shooting took place.

It could also be a total coincidence that NBC News reported Adam Lanza’s AR-15 rifle was left in his car and was never used in the shooting at all.

I suppose it could be a coincidence that Bank of America slammed home an economic embargo against an online gun parts retailer in the days following the Sandy Hook shooting.

And it could be coincidence that Facebook suspended or shut down the accounts of hundreds of prominent people who advocated the Second Amendment, including our account here at Natural News.

And finally, it could be a total coincidence that police radio recordings seem to indicate there were multiple shooters involved in Sandy Hook.

But what are the odds of ALL of these coincidences existing simultaneously? Those odds are virtually zero.

Something’s fishy with all this. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that an order has come down from the very top to destroy, silence, threaten or execute true American patriots. Steve Quayle has long predicted this would be the very first step before foreign troops are unleashed on American soil to take over the country and deliver it, just as Obama has always planned, into the hands of the globalist crime syndicate.

It all sounds outrageous, I admit, and I’m not even sure what to believe myself. But it’s becoming more difficult by the day to deny actual events happening right before our eyes. Believe what you will, but don’t be surprised if people like Steve Quayle and Alex Jones were right all along. If we see any more mysterious deaths of prominent gun advocates, it going to raise huge red flags across the patriot community.

I’m disinclined to read too much into the events that have come together recently.  As matters stand today, rather than seeing a concerted effort by dark forces, I believe that the Sandy Hook shooting triggered (pardon the pun) certain events, such as the fact that Facebook (run by young Progressives) suspended gun proponents’ accounts or that Bank of America (run by old Progressives) is eying askance those in the gun business.

Additionally, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Left’s hysteric response, made us aware of individual tragedies, such as Noveske’s and Raliff’s deaths.  Absent Sandy Hook, we almost certainly wouldn’t have connected those two deaths.  They would have been, instead, two stand-alone events, one an accident, and one a murder.

Having cast cold water on the theory that there is a vast anti-gun conspiracy being played out here, let me now argue the other side.  The Obama government is the least transparent administration in modern history.  It’s an administration that’s wedded to covert action, much of which has to do with weapons.  (Fast and Furious and gun-running in the Middle East being the easiest examples for me to bring to mind.)  Given this, why not believe that it summoned black ops to do wet work that will radically weaken American rights?  Too often, after a coup, we discover that those who benefited from the coup had spent a great deal of time to get their ducks (or, perhaps more accurately, their dominoes) in a row, preparatory for the “revolution.”  In other words, it’s possible (although, I think, not probable) that we are watching a conspiracy in action.

Right now, I’m inclined to give coincidence the benefit of the doubt.  As I said at the beginning of the post, our brains are programmed to make connections.  Usually, these serve us well.  Sometimes, though, they lead us down the primrose path.

For now, then, all of this is coincidence.  However, if too many coincidences start to pile up, I’m willing to keep an open mind about covert and concerted action initiated by an administration that has regularly shown itself to be both open to such conduct and hostile to the unalienable rights set out in the Constitution.


Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    Once is accident, twice is coincidence – three times is enemy action.  Keep your eyes open.  “Wet work,” eh?  Picking up some terminology, there – pretty good for a Marin County lawyer!

  • heartlander

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention the latest, most famous 2nd Amendment giant to be killed within the last month: Chris Kyle, Navy SEAL, hero, and author of bestseller American Sniper.
    Knocking off 3 people would be nothing to a diehard collectivist. Bill Ayers apparently thought it might be necessary to knock off 25 MILLION of us.
    This comment from a recent comment thread says it all for me:
    “I don’t believe in coincidences anymore, not at this point in history, in this country, with this regime in power. At a certain point it stops being paranoia and merges into being completely realistic. When your government constantly lies to you, the only thing you can trust is that you know you can’t trust your government.”    from commenter “Urban Wolf” at:

  • JKB

    ‘Too often, after a coup, we discover that those who benefited from the coup had spent a great deal of time to get their ducks (or, perhaps more accurately, their dominoes) in a row, preparatory for the “revolution.” ‘
    After an attack, we discover that those who did the killing had spent a great deal of time to get their duck (or perhaps more accurately, their dominoes) in a row, preparatory for the murders.
    I think what we are seeing, right now, is the effect of years of conditioning and personnel placement.  Not orders issued, just “individuals” all acting individually but for their common goal.  The most insidious feature are the Progs maneuvered into senior positions in non-profits and other, often conservative, organizations who then betray the mission of the organization and corrupt their efforts.  They even tried it with Walmart.  Some Prog got hired relatively hired up, promoted for Wally World to go big in organic and upscale.  Sales suffered and thankfully, the Waltons sent him packing.  You have to look at the current actions of organizations, nothing is as it seems or was these days.  Historical orgs that would support freedom suddenly betray in the name of “sensible” actions.

  • Earl

    ” I’m willing to keep an open mind about covert and concerted action initiated by an administration that has regularly shown itself to be both open to such conduct and hostile to the unalienable rights set out in the Constitution.”
    Makes me feel weird – since I’m regularly the one pooh-poohing the conspiracy theories people are always throwing around – but all I can say to that is “Yep.”

  • Beth

    Been out of town…just catching up on news.  Didn’t think I’d see the above here at Bookworm and now that I do, it makes me shiver.  Now let’s add to the fact the the Holy Father is resigning….it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world. 

  • lee

    Not on the specific topic, but DEFINITELY related to the idea of “conspiracy”:
    I was listening to Todd Schnitt and the topic was, more or less, are schools “brainwashing” our children? He was talking about he does not believe there is any vast conspiracy to do so. But I started thinking about it, and while I don’t think there is anything that looks like the Simpsons “Stonecutters” episode, with people sitting in a secret cabal, plotting the future, I do think there is a concerted effort to put forth an agenda that involves transforming the maleable minds of the children.
    Let’s take a look at one of the more well-known professors of education: Bill Ayers. From Wikipedia: “He began his career in primary education while an undergraduate, teaching at the Children’s Community School (CCS), a project founded by a group of students and based on the Summerhill method of education.” The Summerhill method is some crazy stuff. And to continuw, “After leaving the underground, he earned an M.Ed from Bank Street College” in 1984. Bank Street College is a progressive spawning field. Since 1986, there are over 660 speeches/presentations he has delivered, colloquia in which he has participated, panels on which he has spoken, particpated. Of these,  I would say roughly 70% to 80% were aimed at people in education–students graduating from ed. schools, education conferences (for teachers and for other professors of eduction), and KIDS (e.g., the Junior Statesmen), etc. 
    Now,  let’s travel back in time to one of the most influential people in the world of higher education, and a major shaper of schools of education in the US: John Dewey. He was a progressive’s progressive and a liberal’s liberal. (Though, bless his heart, he at least was not a Stalin fan. But I have a suspicion that was more to do with the fact that he WAS a Trotsky fan.)
    And let’s also consider the fact that among the hardcore socialist countries (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China), the education of children was DEFINITELY seen as integral to solidifying the power base.
    I do believe that the majority of people going off to college to get their teaching credentials are nice men and women who are seriously motivated by the desire to TEACH. But once they get there, they are hit with the theories developed and propounded by people like John Dewey and Bill Ayers. After awhile, even though staunchest conservative might start to believe in it. (Especially among some of the more naive budding teachers.)
    The lefty-nut jobs go to the various education conferences; some do undoubtedly meet to discuss what they would like to see happening in the field of eduction, in our schools, and in our country. We all sit around and “what if” on subjects near and dear to us–left and right, progressive and conservative alike.  Is there some dark cabal of people, meeting in darkened rooms, plotting how to take over the US by brainwashing are children? I do not think so. Is there an “agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future” among these faculty in schools of education? Well, no…. But there are many, many professors of educaton “breathing together”–spouting the same progressive nonsense to the future teachers of our country–who then take is on faith, and in to the classroom.

  • lee

    BTW, I *STILL* find Andrew Breitbart’s death AWFULLY convenient. He had inspired so many people, and his death did take a lot of the wind out of many people’s sails. And while I applaud the efforts of so many people to continue his legacy (among them Bookworm!), his loss was immeasurable, and so far no one has been able to fill his shoes.

    It just seemed “too” convenient… And I KNOW: the autopsy results indicated that it was heart failure and that no foul play was suspected…

    Yet, it was EXTREMELY convenient…

  • chukker

    Hey Bookworm, could this possibly be the article to which you’re referring?  It was in the New York Times in 2002:

    • Bookworm

      Oh, my gosh, chukker! You’re magical. I always thought I’d read it in The New Yorker, but this is precisely the article I was thinking about. I’ll update the post to add this information.

  • lee

    I am, however, inclined to agree with you, Bookworm. On the other side of the political spectrum, the progressives are painting up EVERY shooting in the aftermath of Sandy Hook as proof that there is AN OUT OF CONTROL EPIDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE THAT CAN *ONLY* BE SOLVED BY *GUN CONTROL.*  We are hearing about shootings that sixth months ago would barely have made the larger local news market, much less NATIONAL news.
    BTW, did you know that on average annually, three times as many people die from septicemia in the US than die from intentional homicide from discharge of a firearm? And that the average number of suicides by means other than discharge of a firearm is close to twice the number of people who are murdered by gunfire? (Got it from the CDC stats!)

  • Mike Devx

    I’m looking for help and information here.
    A friend of mine is on the left side of this gun control debate.  He made the claim this morning that the US military often does not allow its soldiers to be armed unless they are in “a combat situation”.  He claims that soldiers are required to be unarmed due to “safety issues”.
    I’d always thought that on military bases throughout the world, including within the US, that our soldiers were usually armed with their rifles, AND when armed with a rifle, were supposed to be carrying magazines in pouches on their uniforms.
    I also think of the incident where Panetta visited and spoke to our soldiers in a forward base in Afghanistan.  They were not in a combat situation.  And the soldiers to whom he spoke were required to leave their weapons outside.  So that would appear to me to be at least one case where soldiers regularly carry weapons AND magazines.
    Can anyone tell me what the rules really are for soldiers on US military bases being allowed – or not allowed – to carry weapons and magazines?  When are they required to be unarmed?

  • Spartacus

    Ditto what Mrs. Bookworm, JKB and lee said — not a specific, deep, dark, conspiracy here, but the general product of lefties being lefties and all generally agreeing on which direction they want to go.  It’s the confirmation bias they naturally get from living in an echo chamber and drinking their own bathwater, to serve up a plate of mixed metaphors.  Like when the town miscreant gets gunned down in the middle of town in broad daylight, with dozens of people around, and… nobody saw anything: only one guy was in on the “conspiracy,” but no one else is especially motivated to fill in the blanks in the police report.
    The bit about leaving the rifle in the car is quite interesting, if true.  Hadn’t heard that.  But it’s not like the Jurassic Press has a stellar reputation for issuing corrections, especially ones that don’t fit the narrative.

  • Spartacus

    Devx — Stateside, your friend is mostly correct.  Weapons are ubiquitous, but ammo is tightly restricted to the firing ranges — you don’t get ammo until you are in your foxhole with your weapon pointed downrange.  Deployed, that’s a way different story.  And it’s BS that Panetta is such a chicken**** that he wasn’t comfortable being around armed US troops, and even worse BS that US troops should ever have to be disarmed in a place like Afghanistan.  Attacks like the one at Camp Bastion happen, and troops must always have the ability to shoot back.

  • Libby

    I’m not 100% sold on this particular conspiracy theory, but I think like many who are not on the Left, we’re living in a time when just sort of thing would be possible. It’s the combination of:
    A] An untested and unaccomplished president (whose own history is still unknown)
    B] A White House team who have a track record of bullying, violating citizens’ Constitutional rights and acting outside of normal the established chain of command/oversight (e.g. Fast & Furious, Lisa Jackson’s shadow email accounts).
    C] A completely compliant and often complicit media.

  • Spartacus

    Devx — Sorry, a better reply:
    Yes, stateside, soldiers are essentially disarmed, like those in the base hospital at Ft. Hood.
    Deployed, soldiers are almost always armed, so that every time you read about another green-on-blue incident in Afghanistan, it ends, “… before the Afghan trainee was shot to pieces 4.3 seconds later by other US soldiers, having killed only one American.”

  • Ymarsakar

    This is hilarious.
    Whether it is true or not is immaterial. Because it will be true once evil reigns full force over the US.

  • Ymarsakar

    “He claims that soldiers are required to be unarmed due to “safety issues”.”
    As I mentioned before, it’s not a safety issue. It’s a paperwork issue. Paperwork on negligent discharges is… pretty bad, especially state side.

  • Jose

    Mike D,
    After a 20 year career in the AF I can tell you that I sometimes went years without handling a firearm, and then only for training. My experience was that only AF security policemen routinely carry firearms, with a loaded magazine in the weapon, chamber empty.

    Non-security personnel would not be issued firearms, even in combat zones during wartime. Firearms would be in storage, not to be issued unless leadership knew they would be needed.

    I’m sure the Army and Marines had different rules, especially in combat zone, but their job is to engage the enemy. In short, unless you expect to contact some bad guys, you aren’t issued a weapon. It was kind of scary at times…

  • Mike Devx

    Jose and Spartacus, thank you very much for the responses to my question in #11 about soldiers being allowed, or not allowed, to carry firearms.  I appreciate the info!

  • Ron19

    Watching how well this “non-conspiracy” system works in education, is it any wonder that the Left is so against free-market capitalism?