• 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Demoskinos (13851 posts) -

http://politicalblindspot.com/bill-to-ban-certain-tattoos-body-piercings-passes-senate/

So I saw someone post this on my Facebook feed and while I'll refrain (or at least try) from going full blown rant. The bill bans "tattoos, piercings and other body modifications deemed not traditional"

I just don't get this. Things like this affect literally only the person doing it. The only thing this is going to accomplish is people attempting to do home body mods without the proper equipment and hurting themselves in the process.

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (34599 posts) -
Online
#3 Posted by TheHT (10274 posts) -

ಠ_ಠ

#4 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

you should say first off that this is arkansas senate, not the actual senate.

#5 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Those comments are pretty good.

#6 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4281 posts) -

At first I was shocked, but then I saw Arkansas.

#7 Posted by Splodge (707 posts) -

@animasta said:

you should say first off that this is arkansas senate, not the actual senate.

I'm pretty sure they passed something dis-allowing the spread of Shariah law (which has never existed in that state ever) a while back.

If you are able, move to a blue state. I hear its infinitely better if you hate this kind of bullshit.

Online
#8 Posted by maverick1 (87 posts) -

doubt this bill will pass and if it does.someone will challenge it since it's unconstitutional. tattoos are a form of freedom of speech.

#9 Edited by Flacracker (1387 posts) -

BILL PASSES THE Arkansas SENATE!!!!

#10 Edited by Animasta (14460 posts) -

@splodge said:

@animasta said:

you should say first off that this is arkansas senate, not the actual senate.

I'm pretty sure they passed something dis-allowing the spread of Shariah law (which has never existed in that state ever) a while back.

If you are able, move to a blue state. I hear its infinitely better if you hate this kind of bullshit.

wait, you mean you HAVEN'T been to new muscat, arkansas?

#11 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Land of the free...

#12 Posted by Splodge (707 posts) -

@animasta said:

@splodge said:

@animasta said:

you should say first off that this is arkansas senate, not the actual senate.

I'm pretty sure they passed something dis-allowing the spread of Shariah law (which has never existed in that state ever) a while back.

If you are able, move to a blue state. I hear its infinitely better if you hate this kind of bullshit.

wait, you mean you HAVEN'T been to new muscat, arkansas?

I went once but I got sick and tired of all that singing from the minarets. Also, the women were showing way too much ankle.

Online
#13 Edited by development (1584 posts) -

This'll never actually get enacted or implemented as it's a clear violation of freedom of speech. If it does, they're essentially creating an environment where people are encouraged to seek out illegal tattoos, thereby highly increasing the risk of being exposed to unsafe conditions. Law makers need to get it through their heads that people are going to do things to themselves whether that thing is legal or not. Making it illegal just puts harmless people in jail and creates an illegal market for said item or "thing."

#14 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2047 posts) -

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

#15 Posted by tsutohiro (346 posts) -

Land of the free...

...home of the "traditional".

#16 Posted by GreggD (4442 posts) -

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

#17 Posted by Splodge (707 posts) -

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

OK I actually agree now, ban this shit.

Online
#18 Edited by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

The final Arkansas congress bill seems a bit too vague to me, and I don't really understand its application. This could either mean little or a lot. Hopefully it'll either be tossed or amended to be clearer. If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad. I mean, is it being banned for aesthetic purposes or genuine safety of individuals? They really need to clarify a lot here.

#19 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1270 posts) -

It's times like this when I can feel superior being in one of the most progressive states in the country. Of course, it's more like grading on a curve since this is still America, but MA is better than most when it comes to reason and common sense.

#20 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1522 posts) -

Thanks Obama. (Someone had to say it)

#21 Edited by PillClinton (3284 posts) -

If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad.

It shouldn't be the state's responsibility to protect people from themselves and their own personal decisions that affect no one else. This is why the war on drugs is, in addition to being morally reprehensible, an utter failure.

#22 Posted by Splodge (707 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad.

It shouldn't be the state's responsibility to protect people from themselves and their own personal decisions that affect no one else. This is why the war on drugs is, in addition to being morally reprehensible, an utter failure.

A war on stupidity would yield greater results.

They could call it: "Education".

Online
#23 Posted by Stonyman65 (2405 posts) -

The final Arkansas congress bill seems a bit too vague to me, and I don't really understand its application. This could either mean little or a lot. Hopefully it'll either be tossed or amended to be clearer. If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad. I mean, is it being banned for aesthetic purposes or genuine safety of individuals? They really need to clarify a lot here.

From reading the bill, that seems to their goal to stop unsafe practices, but you're right. Like most bills ever written by politicians it's WAY too vague.

I seriously doubt it would pass, but even if it does it would be challenged and repealed immediately because it violates the First Amendment.

#24 Posted by MB (11297 posts) -

I just edited that awfully misleading thread title. Ugh.

Moderator
#25 Posted by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad.

It shouldn't be the state's responsibility to protect people from themselves and their own personal decisions that affect no one else. This is why the war on drugs is, in addition to being morally reprehensible, an utter failure.

I agree that a lot should be allowed as far as what someone does to themselves, but having some controls over procedures done to people is necessary. I'm not saying this particular instance is correct, but when you're dealing with someone doing something to someone else(in this case, a tattoo artist inserting something into someone), it's understandable for there to be legal considerations as to what can and can't be done in that situation.

A doctor can't just do whatever they please to someone in an operating room, and a tattoo artist performing a procedure(like a subdermal implant) can't just do whatever they please to someone who sits down in their chair. This law doesn't appear to ban someone doing this to themselves; it's paying someone to do something to you. It is in the government's interests to regulate procedures done on people. So, while I disagree with this vague bill, I am not opposed to the government caring about what procedures can and cannot be done to people.

#26 Posted by crusader8463 (14307 posts) -

Sucks that we live in a world where there are people in a position of power thinks it's ok to ban things like this. On the other hand those hoop hole ear ring things are dumb as fuck. So I can understand the impulse to want to ban them.

#27 Edited by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

The final Arkansas congress bill seems a bit too vague to me, and I don't really understand its application. This could either mean little or a lot. Hopefully it'll either be tossed or amended to be clearer. If, for safety reasons, they just don't want people branding themselves through purposeful scarring or getting subdermal implants, I guess they can try to pass a law on it, but right now, it just seems too broad. I mean, is it being banned for aesthetic purposes or genuine safety of individuals? They really need to clarify a lot here.

From reading the bill, that seems to their goal to stop unsafe practices, but you're right. Like most bills ever written by politicians it's WAY too vague.

I seriously doubt it would pass, but even if it does it would be challenged and repealed immediately because it violates the First Amendment.

I'm not in favor of this specific bill, but I think it's worth noting that the First Amendment doesn't allow someone else to do whatever they want to you. This bill specifically refers to procedures being done to someone, not what you can do to yourself. A doctor can't just legally perform any procedure they want on someone, and the same goes for a tattoo artist.

#28 Edited by chrissedoff (2041 posts) -

Passing laws that will immediately get stricken down as being in violation of the first amendment as soon as there's a legal challenge is a great use of government resources.

#29 Posted by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

Passing laws that will immediately get stricken down as being in violation of the first amendment as soon as there's a legal challenge is a great use of government resources.

I don't see why you might think it will be immediately stricken down. States have tattoo laws. They have laws on what procedures can be done on what people. The inherent idea of restricting some forms of tattooing is already the law of the land.

I agree that they shouldn't pass such a vague bill, but let's not kid around. They likely can do what they are talking about doing. They just shouldn't.

#30 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Tattoos are gross anyway.

This is still dumb though. Who are they to take away the morons with horrible or overused tattoos? I need all the sources of superiority I can get.

#31 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

You may not know this but 97% of all tattoos inked in Arkansas are of neo-nazi signidicance. Also, who decided "Ar-kansas" was pronounced "Arr-can-saw"?

#32 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4969 posts) -

You may not know this but 97% of all tattoos inked in Arkansas are of neo-nazi signidicance. Also, who decided "Ar-kansas" was pronounced "Arr-can-saw"?

Nazis.

#33 Posted by Hunter5024 (5170 posts) -

Girls need to be allowed to get butterfly tattoos, so that I can know who not to date.

#34 Posted by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -

Girls need to be allowed to get butterfly tattoos, so that I can know who not to date.

It sounds like you're still in luck! They're talking about different kinds of tattoos/piercing.

#35 Posted by Mb246 (70 posts) -

Land of the free...

Home of the Whopper®.

#36 Posted by bigjeffrey (4156 posts) -

tatoos and piercings are dumb.

#37 Posted by joshwent (1778 posts) -
Online
#38 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

A co-worker was browsing reddit the other day and found a pierced cervix posting. Does this prevent that? I think everyone benefits.

#39 Edited by ripelivejam (2786 posts) -

You may not know this but 97% of all tattoos inked in Arkansas are of neo-nazi signidicance. Also, who decided "Ar-kansas" was pronounced "Arr-can-saw"?

it is the Ur-Kansas

#40 Posted by Slaegar (626 posts) -

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

This.

I get it sarcasm!

When people want to outlaw something because it doesn't fit into their tiny close minded world; this is how I feel. I think tattoos and such are goofy, but I would never restrict someone from getting them. I would rather outlaw fat people because they are way more gross than a person with an anchor on their arm. Seriously. Have you ever been to the mall or where ever its hip to hang out these days and someone has this fat lump oozing over their belt and you just want to kick their leg out knowing that its barely supporting such unimaginable girth in the first place? Anyone who makes a *thud* when they land, like a garbage truck putting down a dumpster, should be banned from food. Not really, because I like freedom. Feel free to do what you want and enjoy live. Overweight or not.

#41 Posted by GreggD (4442 posts) -

@slaegar: I don't have a problem with anybody's life choices, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, per se. And I usually only disagree with that kind of stuff when it comes to plastic surgery or body modifications. To each his own, but I won't always enjoy looking at it.

#42 Posted by ShadowConqueror (2993 posts) -

I don't support this in any way, but let's be honest, most tattoos and piercings are dumb.

#43 Posted by ripelivejam (2786 posts) -
it's like we've got each other's backs

#44 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (4433 posts) -

Uhh...

#45 Posted by TruthTellah (7641 posts) -
#46 Posted by ProfessorK (797 posts) -

Wow, whole lotta shit being thrown at self expression lately and not just from the gov't, nice flow of shitty comments in here to boot.

#47 Edited by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

#48 Posted by MideooonNVisceraaa (9 posts) -

While I do hate tattoos and piercings, I hate telling someone they can't do it a lot more.

#49 Posted by Splodge (707 posts) -

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

It always amazes me that the red states and states with a lot of Tea Party influence who HATE any kind of evil government interference in their daily lives, are the ones who legislate to allow the government to interfere in their daily lives.

Online
#50 Edited by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

I can't live in red states anymore. Moved away from Indiana to Michigan many years ago specifically to get away from that kind of crap. Still can't believe what a difference it made. America really is a weirdly divided place.