BREAKING: Driver Rams Gate of NSA HQ, Gun Battle Ensues

7286035_G

“Police shot at an SUV after its driver used the vehicle to ram a set of gates at the National Security Agency’s headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., according to a report. It’s unclear if anyone was injured in the Monday morning incident or why the person drove at the gates on the secure campus, some 22 miles northeast of Washington, D.C.” That report from nydailynews.com. The image above from myfoxdc.com shows what appears to be a body under a sheet. Stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Here we go again.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      11:36am EST….two guys dressed as women ….not terrorism but criminal.

      Those two pieces of info don’t make sense together

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        The only time they’ll use the word “terrorist” is to describe americans for the sole purpose of banning guns and rounding up libertarians and people who are against obama.

        Actual terrorists though? They’ll go out of their way to say that here just lone wolves or this is not indicative or Islam or some other crap.

        And then go t finger pointing and saying “but there are a lot of right wing extremists out there”

        1. avatar BDub says:

          How else will we protect Obama’s terrorist-attack-free legacy?

    2. avatar AllAmerican says:

      Not really, the title is very misleading. There was no “gun battle”. They rammed the gate and got wasted.

      1. avatar John Smith says:

        Yeah– not a “gunfight”.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          Only an idiot takes an SUV to a gunfight.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          Actually if you use it right an SUV is a much, much better weapon than a gun in some circumstances. Stopping power is unmatched by anything but a headshot.

          Of course those circumstances are that someone has to be shooting at you from an accessible location, like the road.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          The Secret Service SUV is a dandy assault vehicle…

    3. avatar Ray says:

      Yup, looks like we’re going to need a couple more new Secret Service agents.

  2. avatar Cicero Smith says:

    Maybe they should enact some common sense laws on SUV control. I mean why would anyone ever need a yuppie-class suburban? /sarc

    My prayers go out to the injured officer’s swift recovery.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      You joke, but that stuff is in process. Manufacturers and legislators are pushing for drivers to have less control of their vehicles. Ford is working on a speed limit sensing system which will not allow your vehicle to exceed the posted speed limit. Mercedes and other have collision avoidance features.

      The .gov and others are pushing “safety features” in cars with the desire to give them more control. An automatic vehicle shut off program has been pushed as well. I’m legitimately concerned about the nanny features on current and future cars.

      1. avatar Jim Jones says:

        Just wait until the self-driving vehicles get good enough. Then there will be talks of banning all non self-driving vehicles. It just never stops with r-types

        http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

      2. avatar MAF says:

        To be clear, Ford’s system is driver deflatable, and the purpose of it is to avoid speeding tickets by following posted limits in areas that may have speed cameras (common in Europe). It is not to control your driving for Big Brother. If you don’t want to use it, you can simply turn it off!

        1. avatar Irish1776 says:

          Until they mandate an override mechanism for the override mechanism. I’m sure that eventually they are going to want to provide Police units with a device that allows them to disable your vehicle based on an RFID device unique to your vehicle and frequency registered to your plates.

          Just give it time. This is the new American…a technocratic panopticon where the “internet of things” will be Big Brothers little helpers.

          1984 was intended as a stern warning to avoid a destination at which we have ultimately arrived.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        (Just commenting based off of your post and not directed at you. 😉 )

        So, how are those baby steps back towards individual Liberty going, guys and gals? We’ll choke on the elephant if we don’t put it down first.

        Courts and legislatures across the land might throw the RKBA a bone here and there but in the overall scheme, the People are going to see less freedom over time. A couple of generations down the road and the general public won’t know any better. For them, all of the government encroachments will be common sense and necessary.

  3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    It’s the NRAs fault.

    1. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

      No, it’s totally the fault of the crazy car lobby! Nobody needs an SUV unless they provide documentation verifying that they’ve engaged in sport and utility motoring within the last 2 years. Civilians don’t even want them – car manufacturers fight to keep them legal.

  4. avatar William B. says:

    Wow…dude did that and ended up dead? Color me shocked. Moron. Tragic for the officer injured, but once again, the liberals will celebrate the opportunity to claim we’re all like the shooter, a dangerous loon ready to go off like a jar of gas near a lit match.

    1. avatar AllAmerican says:

      Except there was no “shooter”.

  5. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    Misleading titles much? (Not on TTAG, but from the linked source).

    The only “shooting” (so far) was from the police.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      There are probable some people out there in the media that thinks the security personnel shouldn’t have responded with guns, they should have responded with, I dunno, another vehicle. Like two goats butting heads.Gotta make it fair for everyone involved.

  6. avatar tfunk says:

    Was it actually a gun battle? No report I’ve seen so far mentions any shots fired by the driver.

  7. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    The NSA needs to be shut down, but coming through the front door is probably not the best method.

    1. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Unless you’re doing so leading a platoon of light infantry with armor support. (Best way I heard to describe a modern SWAT team.)

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        A platoon to take the NSA building?

        Better make that a battalion for starters…

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Unless you have a Bradley or a Stryker you don’t have armor support. A stock National Guard MP unit would roll over you “militarized” SWAT unit. When hear this kind of hyperbole I am reminded of the “elite IraqI Republican Guard.” That also couldn’t stand up to a second line guard unit.

  8. avatar MurrDog says:

    I’m surprised the NSA didn’t know about it beforehand.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      The NSA has the same record of accuracy and precision as a palm reading gypsy. Advantage to the gypsy for not costing billions and billions of dollars.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        You have no idea what NSA’s track record is. Intelligence failures are almost all policy failures. The intel was there but it was ignored by someone who could actually give an order.

    2. avatar Frank from the NSA says:

      Sorry, I was on break.

      1. avatar JWM says:

        So now your gate is broke. This is why we’re reluctant to trust you with neat toys.

  9. avatar Joelt1 says:

    “At least two people are injured after a driver of a vehicle tried to ram a gate at the National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade Monday morning, resulting in a shooting, officials said.”
    ^sounds like he tried to ram the gates and they started shooting. How did the officer get injured? Crossfire or was he hit by the guy in the vehicle?

  10. avatar Jimmy says:

    probably another publicity stunt to gain sympathy for the surveillance/police state.

  11. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    Can we at least agree that this was just a method of suicide, and the waste of a perfectly serviceable SUV?

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      Depends, was it a Saturn suv?

  12. avatar DickG says:

    I thought “NSA” stood for “No Such Agency”.
    .
    Why does it have a gate?
    .
    Oh. Wait. Maybe that’s what we should turn it into!
    .

  13. avatar pat says:

    NSA headquarters is in the middle of an Army base. How did these guys get through base security before even having the opportunity to ram the NSA gate in the first place?

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      oops!

    2. avatar Hinshelworld says:

      Has its own separate entrance.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        +1

        Some of our brethren are clueless about anything except guns.

  14. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    “Workplace violence”? I’ll ask my DoD son as he works nearby-‘course he won’t tell me a damn thing…

  15. avatar Paul53 says:

    But it seemed like a good idea at the time!

  16. avatar fcmatt says:

    Newer stories say they found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle. WTF.

  17. avatar Hannibal says:

    Play stupid games…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Like invading the privacy of a free people? I’m surprised that the NSA only lost a gate so far.

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    General comment: It seems that a number of people believe that guards guarding a sensitive installation won’t shoot someone trying to get in. Here is the take away for you. These installations are guarded by either civilian government security personnel or military/security police and they will kill you if you try to force your way in.

    I once misunderstood the guards at CIA HQ when I thought I heard the direction to proceed through the visitor’s gate. I was there to escort some contractors to a meeting. As I pulled into a parking space to wait a car pulled up and security piled out with guns drawn. The only reason that I didn’t end up face down on the ground was they saw the community badge around my neck. Scared the $hit out of me.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email