Category: Self_Defense / Crime Prevention / Security


Saturday, May 18, 2013

Funny Obamas

Dave Hodges
Activist Post

Mark Twain once talked about history not necessarily repeating, but he noted that history sure does rhyme.

Richard Nixon was unable to survive one direct hit upon his administration, namely, the Watergate scandal. Conversely, Obama is facing five scandals which dwarf Watergate in terms of criminality, abuse of power, malfeasance of office and outright treason.

The damage inflicted upon the American people by the criminal syndicate occupying the White House is unparalleled in American history. Yet, Obama is going to survive and this article will describe how Obama is this century’s version of the famous escape artist, Houdini.

The Alternative Media Is Doing Its Job

In Part One of this series, I detailed how various researchers have determined that it only takes 10% of the population to passionately hold to an ideal for the ideal to reach critical mass and go viral. I also described how the knowledge that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate is taking hold and we have likely passed the 10% threshold as evidenced by the fact that America is outraged by (1) Benghazi-Gate; (2) IRS-Gate; (3) AP Spy-Gate; (4) Whistleblower-Gate; and even (5) Fast and Furious is beginning to make a second pass. The alternative media is being so effective that it is forcing the MSM to jump off Obama’s ship and claim they do not support him any longer (e.g. MSNBC Chris Mathews).

The Calm Before the Storm

Even the great fence-sitter, Glenn Beck, is beginning to throw words around like “impeachment” in reference to Obama. And this is coming from a man who cannot decide if he is in the MSM or the alternative media. Remember, according to Beck, 9/11 is exactly as the Bush administration claims it was, an al-Qaeda venture. This is the same al-Qaeda that we are allegedly fighting in Afghanistan while supporting in Syria in our effort to oust Assad.
Regardless of the pedigree of many reporters who are now hinting at the fact that we are witnessing the last days of the Obama administration, the President himself seems unbelievably calm.

Obama is calm because he knows that he is going to survive the largest onslaught of simultaneous scandal exposures in our country’s history. There has never been a time in our history in which a sitting president has been besieged with this much exposed fodder aimed at his removal. If Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Obama should have been crushed by the comparative weight of his scandals and he should have already exited the White House. Why hasn’t this happened?

Sacrificial Lambs Buy Time

It is not likely that the Mafioso inhabitant presently residing in the White House will ever leave office prematurely. In fact, I think it is likely that Obama may not leave the Oval Office in 2016 as well.

If this were 1974, I would be advising Obama to pack his bags and I would also be advising him that he should be begging Joe Biden to grant him a pardon for his criminal acts including the facilitation of the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Make no mistake about it, Obama will survive these crises. However, Holder and possibly even DHS director, Janet Napolitano, may not.

Undoubtedly, Obama will offer up the head of Eric Holder as a sacrificial lamb and he will be gone by Labor day, if not much sooner, and this will buy Obama time to enact his endgame strategies which will negate the five Watergate wolves trying to break through his door.

Holder’s departure will bring celebrations in the alternative media and their followers will be dancing in the streets. We will also smell blood and want more removals. But the head of the president will never be touched despite the fact that all of us will soon be screaming for Obama’s scalp. It will just never happen.

What Will Save This President?

There is one game-changing event which will suddenly and irreversibly negate the momentum that the alternative media has achieved in terms of exposing and removing this criminal administration from power.

In the last eight months, I have repeated the mantra that most of what drives this government today is the preservation of the Petrodollar on behalf of the Federal Reserve. I have also detailed how Iran is selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold, thus threatening the preeminence of the Petrodollar in which the other countries of the world must first purchase dollars from the Federal Reserve for the “privilege” of purchasing oil. This process provides the only backing that our dollar possesses.

Iran, China, Russia and India are destabilizing the dominance of our currency. Before you cheer the fact that the Federal Reserve is about ready to take a much-deserved bloodbath, please realize that you have a job to go to every Monday morning because of this one-sided arrangement and it is all about to end unless Iran can be toppled.

Why Syria?

Have you yet figured out why Obama will survive these crushing scandals and assume power in this country in a manner only reserved for such despots as Stalin? The road to Obama’s immediate survival runs through Damascus.

On the surface, Syria seems so very insignificant on the global chessboard. However, the key to invading Iran and seizing their oil fields is to first control Syria, because the occupation of Syria is an insurmountable checkmate against Russian ground troops’ intervention.

If the US takes over the Syrian revolution that we started through our al-Qaeda proxy forces, the US will gain a huge tactical advantage in the Middle East. The installation of short- and medium-range missile batteries in Syria will serve as a deterrent and a blocking mechanism for Russian ground troops’ ability to intervene in Iran.

If Russia allows the US to control Syria, Russia will lose any chance of preventing a US/NATO takeover of Iran. Russia and China have heavily vested themselves in gold. If Iran is stopped from selling its oil for gold, China, Russia and India will have wasted an enormous amount of the respective GNP’s in acquiring gold. And the acquisition of gold will be for naught if the US is about to re-establish the dominance of the Petrodollar as the world’s reserve currency through a successful invasion of Iran.

For awhile, it appeared as if Russia did not have the stomach for WWIII and they were going to let us topple Assad without so much as a whimper. I have been shocked as I have watched Russia apparently acquiesce to an impending takeover of Syria by US-led forces. However, recent Russian events make it clear that WWIII is on the horizon.

Read Full Article Here

About these ads

 

 

Image source

********************************************************************************************

Friday, 17 May 2013 09:22 PM


 

  • 0
    Share
Sheriffs of 54 Colorado counties sued Governor John Hickenlooper, challenging recently enacted state laws that ban ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for gun sales and loans.

The sheriffs, in a complaint filed today in federal court in Denver, said the ammunition law bans most magazines of any size in an attempt to prohibit those that can be converted to hold more than 15 rounds. They also alleged that compliance with the background checks will be practically impossible.

The effect of the ammunition law’s “various provisions is the widespread ban on functional firearms,” according to the complaint. “The prohibition of so many box and tube magazines of any size, and the prohibition of magazines greater than 15 rounds, directly and gravely harm the ability of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for lawful purposes, especially self- defense.”

The lawsuit is based on claims under the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms and due process.

Lawmakers in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Maryland passed laws limiting firearms ownership after 20 children and six educators were shot to death Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

Read Full Article Here

Piers Morgan: Now I see U.S. Government Tyranny (Video)

(Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

Piers Morgan (Photo by Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

by Chelsea Schilling
WND
May 17, 2013

Is British CNN host Piers Morgan finally admitting gun advocates have a point when they say the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from tyrannical government?

Morgan has made headlines for many months as he loudly trumpeted the cause of gun control, even to the detriment of his shows ratings.

Since the Sandy Hook massacre last year – in which Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 students and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. – Morgan has made advocating for gun-control legislation a frequent topic of his program, clashing with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or rocker and National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent, for example, and calling Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt “an unbelievably stupid man” for disagreeing with him.

Following reports of his vitriolic attacks, a petition was started on the White House “We the People” website demanding Morgan be deported back to England – and it now has more than 109,000 signatures.

As WND reported, despite his avid criticism of guns, Morgan protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a recent investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.

And on March 11, Morgan insisted that, “people need the nanny state occasionally.”

Now – after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records – the CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all:

 

Read Full Article Here

Credit: Eric Turner/KTVB

by Scott Evans

KTVB.COM

Posted on May 7, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Updated yesterday at 12:26 PM

 

BOISE – Gov. Butch Otter is using Idaho’s reputation as a 2nd Amendment friendly state to try and lure out-of-state businesses.

Lawmakers on the national, state and city level across the country have, or are talking about, creating stricter gun laws in the wake of tragedies like what happened last year in Newtown, Conn. The creation of those laws is driving some gun and ammunition manufacturers to consider relocating their businesses.

The governor sent a letter in April to 79 businesses in 28 states, personally inviting them to do business here in Idaho. Intacto Arms in Boise agrees with what the governor is doing.

A handful of employees run the boutique firearms manufacturing company that specializes in small quantity, but high quality weapons for its law enforcement and military customers.

“More than anything, I mean, Idaho is just a firearm friendly state. I mean it’s built around the outdoors and guns are just a way of life here,” said Cooper Kalisek, President of Intacto Arms. “It’s as pro-gun as it gets.”

Kalisek opened the company in 2009. “It was something I was always interested in,” he said.

He says he lies awake at night thinking about what’s happening to his industry.

“Some of the largest firearms manufacturers that created this business are based in no longer friendly states,” said Kalisek.

He’s talking about companies in Colorado and Connecticut that are looking to other states to set up shop. Gov. Otter and the Idaho Department of Commerce also see what’s going on.

 

Read Full Article and Watch Video Here

Image Source

*****************************************************************************

Posted by

mainstreamDay after day, the media pounds out a relentless drumbeat against nullification.

Pundits, commentators and so-called legal experts demonize it as unconstitutional, villainize it as racist and trivialize it with slurs like “wacky” and “kookie.”

But while the political class continues to arrogantly ridicule Madison and Jefferson’s principles, everyday Americans embrace them in increasing numbers.

A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that nullification is growing more and more popular in mainstream America.   Pollsters found 38  percent support states taking actions to “block” federal acts that restrict the right to keep and bear arms.  Less than half (45 percent) oppose blocking these unconstitutional federal acts.

Even more revealing: more people than not approve of nullification in general.

“On the general question of ‘nullification,’ 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 are undecided,” pollsters said.

Digging into the numbers, we find even broader support for nullification where it really counts – on Main Street.

A majority of everyday politically engaged Americans support the general principle of nullification. According to the Rasmussen poll, 52 percent of mainstream voters think states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds.

Think about it. Even enduring constant demonization from the mainstream media and the political elite, most average American voters approve of nullification efforts.

Amazing!

“People are finally starting to understand and accept the concept of decentralization. Our message is mainstream now and we have hard data to prove it,” Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center state chapter coordinator Lesley Swann said.

So, where does the vast majority of opposition to nullification come from?

The political class.

You know, the guys calling it “ludicrous” and “demented.”

Seventy-four percent of those polled identifying with the political class oppose nullification. Of course, most of those folks don’t even think anything warrants nullifying. A whopping 80 percent of the political class indicated they think the government operates within constitutional limits. A majority (56 percent) of mainstream voters disagree with their assessment.

Note the term used: block. In other words, a majority of everyday Americans believe states can interpose (verb; be an obstacle to, BLOCK, break into, come between, force in, hinder, impede, infiltrate, infringe, inject, insert, intercalate, intercede, intercept, interfere, interject, intermeddle, intermediate, interrupt, intervene, introduce, intrude, mediate, obstruct, obtrude, parenthesize, penetrate, place between, prevent, put in, stand in the way, thrust in) to stop unconstitutional federal act.

Of course, James Madison made that case more than 200 years ago.

 

****************************************************************************

83rd
Legislature

Rep. Krause, Matt

member image

by: Rep. Krause, Matt

05/07/2013

AUSTIN, TEXAS – Today, Rep. Matt Krause passed H.B. 928 on its third and final reading out of the Texas House of Representatives. H.B. 928 is the first bill Rep. Krause has successfully guided out of the chamber in his first term in office.

“There has been a lot of discussion on firearms and our rights as Americans in the wake of the recent mass killings in Colorado and Connecticut,” said Rep. Matt Krause. “H.B. 928 simply ensures that Texas will frame the discussion on these issues and that we will not aid the federal government in enforcing unnecessarily restrictive or punitive measures designed to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

H.B. 928 would establish a new cooperative framework between Texas and the federal government solely as it relates to firearms. The bill declares that no state resources (i.e. law enforcement or any state or local agency) can be utilized for the enforcement of federal firearm regulations that do not also exist in state law. The bill also prohibits state resources from being deputized by the federal government for the express purpose of enforcing federal firearm regulations.

“My bill completely respects the federal government’s right and ability to make and enforce its own laws,” continued Rep. Krause. “Federal law is the supreme law of the land and H.B. 928 does nothing to refute that; however, my bill does make it clear that where federal laws do not align with state laws, Texas will not spend its resources and time enforcing those laws for them. The FBI or ATF is more than welcome to come to Texas and enforce those laws in which the federal government has overstepped the state, but our local and state tax dollars won’t be helping them.”
H.B. 928 instructs our state resources on their conduct while respecting the federal government’s ability and right to create and enforce its own laws.

“We love to call H.B. 928 the ‘Come and Take It’ bill, because it truly encompasses that mentality. Critics who claim that its ‘unconstitutional’ or wrongfully invoke ‘nullification’ are simply scared at how simple it is for a state to lawfully and meaningfully assert its sovereignty on an important issue such as the 2nd Amendment,” said Rep. Matt Krause.

Contact:
Elliott Griffin
(512) 463-0562

Contact Info

Capitol Address:
District Address:
Room E1.424, Capitol Extension
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0562
(512) 463-2053 Fax

Texas’ Firearm Protection Act: Fact and Fiction

Posted by

The Texas House recently passed multiple gun measures designed to protect Texans from undesired, if not unconstitutional, federal gun laws. Two bills related to federal gun laws, HB 1076 and HB 928, are proceeding and at the time of this writing HB 1076 has passed the final vote in the Texas House, 100-47 and HB 928 has passed as well, 102-31. The bills seek to deny state and local resources for enforcement of federal gun laws and in support of this deny funding to state and local officials that do enforce federal gun laws.

Unfortunately, there is a wealth of misinformation published that obscures the legitimacy of this legislation. For instance, the  Dallas Morning News makes numerous claims inconsistent with facts.

Key statements made in this article are incorrect and mislead the reader regarding the content and legitimacy of the bill’s language. Starting in the third paragraph, Ms. Hoppe begins her summary of a “proposal to nullify new federal gun control laws.”. This is in regards to Steve Toth’s HB 1076.

Ms. Hoppe states: “Those gun laws not already on the books in Texas couldn’t be enforced here under the sweeping and unadjudicated argument that they wouldn’t be constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

It is true that the legislation would reject local enforcement of federal laws. That is the point of the legislation in general. In contrast to the implication, it is very workable in practice as state laws would be put in place as needed. This allows the Texas legislature to draft gun laws that are consistent with the Texas Constitution.

However, Ms. Hoppe’s claim that the legislation challenges the constitutionality of any federal law is false. No such argument is being made regarding the Second Amendment. In HB 1076, Texas is merely refusing to participate in the local enforcement of federal gun laws. In fact, the constitutionality of the gun laws is neither challenged nor validated. They simply deny resources and manpower to enforcement. The Constitutionality of this bill from the federal perspective is clear.  In Printz v. U.S., a 1997 Supreme Court case, Scalia rejected federal comandeering of state and local officers regardless of the constitutionality of the federal law. In other words, the federal government cannot, in any case, force states to uphold federal laws.

Ms. Hoppe states: “And for those cities or counties that tried to enforce a new federal gun law, their entities would lose any state grant money.”

True.

Next, Ms. Hoppe states: “Supporters of the bill said they worked with the attorney general’s office in shaping the so-called Firearms Protection Act. But other lawmakers — all of them Democrats — said the bill ignored the constitution, especially the supremacy clause that establishes federal laws override state ones.”

The supremacy clause is irrelevant in this case since there is no challenge to any specific federal gun laws. It’s just not part of the bill. However, it is worth pointing out the the suggestion made here, that federal law always trumps state law, is false as well. The supremacy clause is a not a blank check on power, it only applies to laws made in pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.  Texas State Representative James White posted this to Facebook regarding the general misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause:

Read Full Article Here

Posted by

Jefferson City, Mo (May 8, 2013) – Tonight, the Missouri State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history.  The vote was 116-38.

HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42.  Last week, the State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6.  The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened just before 10pm local time this evening.

The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority.  Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st.  Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!”

As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future.   It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The legislation also includes misdemeanor criminal penalties if agents of the federal government attempt to enact gun control measures that violate the Constitution of the United States and State Constitution of Missouri.

The immediate effect of the law would be as follows:

1.  All state and local law enforcement would be required to stop enforcing, or even providing any assistance in enforcing, federal gun control measures – all of them.

2.  Grassroots activists should immediately start pressing local governments – county, city and town – to pass an ordinance which a) states an unwavering dedication to the new law passed, and b) requires all local law enforcement and all government assets to immediately cease in the enforcement of federal gun control measures.

Read Full Article Here

RutherfordInstitute

Published on May 7, 2013

In conjunction with the upcoming release of his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, John W. Whitehead sits down to discuss several “pressure points” that are threatening the Bill of Rights and undermining our essential freedoms. In part one of this special series, Whitehead examines the increased presence of militarized police.

 

****************************************************************************************************

 

Commentary


Invasion of the Body Searchers: The Loss of Bodily Integrity in an Emerging Police State [SHORT]

By John W. Whitehead
January 14, 2013

If you want a recipe for disaster, take police officers hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge, throw in a few court rulings suggesting that security takes precedence over individual rights, set it against a backdrop of endless wars and militarized law enforcement, and then add to the mix a populace distracted by entertainment, out of touch with the workings of their government, and more inclined to let a few sorry souls suffer injustice than to challenge the status quo.

The resulting concoction, I can promise you, will be a messy, noxious stew unfit for consumption, miserable to digest and with after-effects that will leave you reeling and clutching your stomach in dismay. Such is the nature of life in the emerging police state that is America today, where roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.

Consider, for example, what happened to 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, who were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. First, the trooper berated the women for littering on the highway. Then, insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.

Leila Tarantino was allegedly subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino’s body. No contraband or anything illegal was found.

Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers have been charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers is accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Half-way across the country, the city of Oakland, California, has agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.

And then there’s the increasingly popular practice of doing blood draws at DUI checkpoints, where drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test find themselves subjected to forcible blood extractions to test for alcohol levels. Police in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, actually had a registered nurse and an assistant district attorney on hand “to help streamline the ‘blood draw’ warrants and collect blood samples from suspected impaired drivers” at one exercise in holiday drunk driving enforcement. A similar case, Missouri v. McNeely, which deals with a driver who failed a sobriety test, then refused a breathalyzer test and was subjected to a warrantless blood draw, is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Read Full Article Here

Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism

Published time: April 29, 2013 17:55
Edited time: April 30, 2013 17:12

RT

Police and private security personel monitor security cameras at the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative on April 23, 2013 in New York City. (AFP Photo / John Moore)

Police and private security personel monitor security cameras at the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative on April 23, 2013 in New York City. (AFP Photo / John Moore)

Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.

A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.

Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.

In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.

Read Full Article Here

**************************************************************************************************

 

 Man opens fire with AR-15 rifle at Houston airport checkpoint before turning gun on himself

The man allegedly fired in the air at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport, was fired at by an air marshall, who missed, and after shooting himself was rushed to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The incident comes a day before the NRA annual meeting in Houston.

 

Thursday, May 2, 2013, 3:33 PM
253
64
0

 

 	The scene at Bush Intercontinental Airport, where a man shot himself with an AR-15.

abc13

The scene at Bush Intercontinental Airport, where a man shot himself with an AR-15.

A shooting at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport rattled passengers Thursday.

A man is alleged to have walked into the ticket area inside Terminal B at approximately 1:35 p.m. and fired an AR-15 rifle at least twice into the air as he apporached a security checkpoint, a Houston Police Department spokesman said.

In response, an air marshal fired at the man, but missed, and then the suspect pulled out another gun which he turned on himself, KHOU News reported. In all, a total of five to seven shots were fired.

Police say a man walked into Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport on Thursday, took out an AR-15 rifle, and began shooting. 

Google

Police say a man walked into Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport on Thursday, took out an AR-15 rifle, and began shooting.

 

Read  Full Article and Watch Video Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 724 other followers