At least they're creative

But that's where the acknowledgement ends and the mocking begins. Why? Well, there's this group called the Brady Coalition going around at Florida's airports handing out fliers warning visitors about a new law in Florida that gives property owners additional self defense rights. The insanity and intellectual dishonesty of these people is absolute. It's not difficult to infer that they believe all gun owners are psychotic killers who just want to shoot people for any reason. From the Miami Herald talking specifically about the fliers:

The new law ''may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities,'' the one-page flier reads. The ads will warn that after Oct. 1, visitors ''face a greater risk of bodily harm in Florida,'' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based advocacy group.

The fliers urge tourists to take precautions, such as: ''Do not argue unnecessarily with local people,'' and ''keep your hands in plain sight'' if you are involved in a traffic accident or a near-miss.

Then Hamm totally reveals either his ignorance, naivete, or dishonesty by saying, "We are not trying to scare people, the Florida Legislature scared people."

Jumping slightly off topic for a second here, I wonder if this is the group that was behind the so-called "assault weapons ban" aka the Brady Bill. Same name. Same group? If anyone knows, post a comment.

The whole effort of this coallition is a waste of breath. The bill was passed 94-20 in the Florida House and unanimously in the state Senate, so it's not likely any of them are going to repeal it. Besides, the only change that I'm aware of to the existing law is it removes the absurd requirement that you have to retreat from your own house if someone's breaking in. Do these people actually think would-be rapists, murderers, burglers and other illegal intruders should have the right of way and be PROTECTED BY LAW when comitting their crimes? I'm glad these people are, for the time being, a small minority.

Read the original article here

Update 12:07: Michelle Malkin has a letter from a reader correcting and clarifying the factual description of the law, and also the history behind it. Worth reading, definitely. The essence of the correction is that the law allows the use of deadly force in response to an attack threatening death or severe bodily harm anywhere the victim has a right to be, and not limited to his own property. What the law does NOT do is make it leagal for someone to shoot an attacker in the back after a minor offense like purse snatching, for instance.