If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Arkansas is banning tattoos and body piercing. Cross burning still ok   (thestateweekly.com) divider line 120
    More: Fail, Arkansas Senate, Arkansas, cross burning, Body piercing jewellery  
•       •       •

12183 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 5:36 PM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 06:16:29 PM
In terms of putting more regulation over the piercing and tattoo market, Sen. Irvin's bill states the artist must work "in a body art establishment licensed by the department for at five (5) years and been in compliance with department rules governing body artists;"

/Really? Just because this tight assed coont doesn't agree with certain types of mods, she has to make it illegal so that people who DO like it, will have to go somewhere else to get it. Nice. Way to enhance the freedom that Americans enjoy every day. I'm guessing she's a bible thumping Republtard who's life mission is to spread her derp and "family values" to everyone.
 
2013-08-21 06:18:11 PM

serpent_sky: Tom_Slick: I think licensing tattoo artists is a good idea, outside of that STFU

I can't see any argument against making sure that there are health codes and safety laws that tattoo artists, piercers, and those who do dermal implants and scarification must abide by. But beyond that, consenting adults should be able to do what they wish with their own bodies.

This seems to be a recurring theme with these lawmakers: "how can we exert control over what people do with, and to, their own bodies?"  Whether it's scarification, bedroom activities, or whatever else.... why do they care so much?  How is this even slightly a pressing public issue?


/Its not, its a fundie cristian family values agenda spreading its derp.  And its unconstitutional. good luck with your lawsuit.
 
2013-08-21 06:19:59 PM
I for one, support the ban on crappy tattoos.

Wait, whut?
 
2013-08-21 06:21:24 PM

Somacandra: Because they have nothing better to do than invite court challenges by legitimate businesses with a customer base----both with First Amendment protection?


Shh. this is jobs jobs jobs

or something.
 
2013-08-21 06:22:14 PM
You know, you may not agree with it, but damned if it isn't their right to vote that way and get it passed in their state. It was obviously important to enough people there to go through, so you should abide by it even if you disagree with it. Unless you're a filthy statist that thinks state's rights are meaningless.
 
2013-08-21 06:22:58 PM

mbillips: Oddly, this is still legal.

[foreverfail.com image 499x676]


If I ever get a tat, that will be it.
 
2013-08-21 06:24:59 PM
Ink: meh.

Piercings: blech.

But if it floats your boat, it's your boat.
 
2013-08-21 06:27:49 PM

TexanBoy: You know, you may not agree with it, but damned if it isn't their right to vote that way and get it passed in their state. It was obviously important to enough people there to go through, so you should abide by it even if you disagree with it. Unless you're a filthy statist that thinks state's rights are meaningless.


Is it really their right to outlaw something that seems so obviously free-speechy, though?
 
2013-08-21 06:31:43 PM
what about horse-farking?  Cousin-banging?  Tourist-hunting?  I NEED TO KNOW, DAMMIT!
 
2013-08-21 06:33:11 PM

TexanBoy: You know, you may not agree with it, but damned if it isn't their right to vote that way and get it passed in their state. It was obviously important to enough people there to go through, so you should abide by it even if you disagree with it. Unless you're a filthy statist that thinks state's rights are meaningless.


This is why democracy doesn't work. It's mob rule. 51% getting to tell the remaining 49% to go stuff it.
 
2013-08-21 06:33:15 PM

FTFA

A question one may wonder is - why shouldn't consumers be allowed the freedom to purchase what they like without the government's continued interference? The role of the government was never to regulate the action's of the people, whether they believe it is for their own good, or not. Free marketers espouse the value of self-regulation and self-ownership in order to allow freedom of choice to the consumer. If you want an unusual body piercing or tattoo and find somebody willing to do the procedure, then the government should stay out of the business arrangement.


THIS
 
2013-08-21 06:33:57 PM
chevydeuce: It's always struck me as funny that the lady who washes hair and runs a pair of scissors or clippers through  hair has to be licensed and periodically retested by the state, yet the guy down at Uncle Bob's Tattoo, Tire and Taco Shop can go jabbing people with needles or poking holes in a body with nothing more than a wink and a smile from any regulatory agency.

Well barbers even being regulated is a holdover from when they did minor dentistry and surgery like pulling teeth and lancing boils.
 
2013-08-21 06:37:00 PM
Not saying I agree with spending time on the proposed law, but the submitted headline is misleading at best. They are not banning tats and piercings, just a few more extreme and disfiguring procedures and requiring artists to be licensed. The latter seems like common sense. I'd want to know that someone poking holes in my body had some training and certification that they know what they are doing.
 
2013-08-21 06:37:32 PM

TexanBoy: You know, you may not agree with it, but damned if it isn't their right to vote that way and get it passed in their state. It was obviously important to enough people there to go through, so you should abide by it even if you disagree with it. Unless you're a filthy statist that thinks state's rights are meaningless.


No one is saying that passing idiotic laws that will get shredded in federal court as unconstitutional is exercising a right they don't have. No one.

What everyone is saying is that it's a waste of time and money and addresses no real issues and will be shredded in federal court.

So I guess you won the imaginary argument pretty effectively but not, as yet, the actual discussion.
 
2013-08-21 06:39:06 PM

Somacandra: doyner:  I'm pretty sure we'll see soon how this ties in to abortion.

I have to admit, I would probably support a ban on intrauterine tattooing procedures. A fetus is simply way too young to make an informed decision whether or not to have "ALANIS4EVAR" tramp stamped above its hiney.


How about a tattoo on the uterus itself?

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-08-21 06:41:51 PM
Headline sucks, and so do you subby.
 
2013-08-21 06:43:51 PM
How long before someone proclaims scarification religious in nature and then challenges his on a 1st amendment issue?
 
2013-08-21 06:44:19 PM
just ban everything & tell us what we can do!
 
2013-08-21 06:46:51 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-21 06:54:47 PM
Scarification is not a tattoo and dermal implants are stupid. So who cares.
 
2013-08-21 06:55:18 PM
Don't go to uncle bob, then. In Kentucky, we're scrutinized properly, from tests to ensure that your sterilization equipment is in working order down to what color leather your chairs are, and the health department's rating has to be placed where the patrons can clearly see. Most shops, as is likely the case with salons, get most business by word of mouth, so running a filthy shop equates to running the shop into the ground. I'm sure a stylist or barber needs to keep a clean shop, but the scrutiny which a tattoo and piercing studio undergoes is marginally higher, as "jabbing people with needles or poking holes in a body" should be. We renew our licenses as frequently as we're required, and making sure customers are healthy and happy is paramount. Thank you.
 
2013-08-21 06:55:43 PM

Oldiron_79: chevydeuce: It's always struck me as funny that the lady who washes hair and runs a pair of scissors or clippers through  hair has to be licensed and periodically retested by the state, yet the guy down at Uncle Bob's Tattoo, Tire and Taco Shop can go jabbing people with needles or poking holes in a body with nothing more than a wink and a smile from any regulatory agency.

Well barbers even being regulated is a holdover from when they did minor dentistry and surgery like pulling teeth and lancing boils.


They continue to be licensed because the industry likes that added bit of protection from competition.  It adds a hurdle to becoming a neighborhood hair stylist.
 
2013-08-21 06:56:58 PM

Chinchillazilla: One of those "small government" states, I see.


It's all small government until someone offends a Christian.
 
2013-08-21 06:58:53 PM

Isitoveryet: just ban everything & tell us what we can do!


You can't carry/own/use a gun in many jurisdictions, regardless what the constitution might say. How's that for a start sparky? You also can't put up anything with a religious message withing 2000 feet of a school. (might have mixed that one up - give it time though) And you can't not buy Cadillac-level health insurance with all the bells and whistles even if you just need catastrophic insurance.
 
2013-08-21 06:59:04 PM
I'm OK with this.

Stick to getting goofy haircuts and wearing stupid clothes like the generations before you.

At least when you get older people will have to drag out really old photos to prove what an idiot you were.

I still torment my older brother with pictures where he has an 80's Man Perm.
 
2013-08-21 07:04:42 PM

Oldiron_79: 8Fingers: Was out and about today shopping, it was warm/hot and sunny, so the women were showing lots of skin. It struck me as to how I found women with no visable tattoos, (or little ones on an ankle or shoulder blade) to be so much more attractive, fashionable, not fat, pleasent to look at and admire. Than the ones with covering tats. The ones with covering tats tended to be just kinda gross looking in general, and then they addd tats. I could never be a tattoo artist with having to squeeze so much disgusting blubber to put a kids birthdate and pic on some fat chicks arm.

I've noticed the same


That's nice. Do we all have to submit to your standards of beauty?
 
2013-08-21 07:05:32 PM
::sigh::


Do your research, people.

The offending bill was amended upon reaching the House, and subsequently made less invasive in its final form.
checks and balances works!
 
2013-08-21 07:11:53 PM
Um, why exactly does her state assembly profile page list her religion? Is that even legal?
 
2013-08-21 07:15:36 PM
propasaurus: Oldiron_79: 8Fingers: Was out and about today shopping, it was warm/hot and sunny, so the women were showing lots of skin. It struck me as to how I found women with no visable tattoos, (or little ones on an ankle or shoulder blade) to be so much more attractive, fashionable, not fat, pleasent to look at and admire. Than the ones with covering tats. The ones with covering tats tended to be just kinda gross looking in general, and then they addd tats. I could never be a tattoo artist with having to squeeze so much disgusting blubber to put a kids birthdate and pic on some fat chicks arm.

I've noticed the same

That's nice. Do we all have to submit to your standards of beauty?


Not at all, I was just concurring with another's observation.
 
2013-08-21 07:21:34 PM
The government has a right to be involved. The government is charged with generally keeping you safe by KEEPING OTHER PEOPLE FROM HURTING YOU. An unlicensed tattoo giver isn't keeping you safe, he is endangering you by shoving non-sterile needles into your body. The government shouldn't say 'You can't get tattoo.' but should say 'You can't get unsafe tattoo.'

and as for the scarification and trans dermal implants- as long as it is fairly safe I don't see how they can ban it or how a full ban would possibly hold up. Put it this way- people can get breast implants for purely cosmetic reasons- and that is standard surgery, right? Pretty high chance of infection/problems. So maybe they make rules about what qualifications your tattoo artist must have, but they have set the bar pretty high for what cosmetic modifications you can get.
 
2013-08-21 07:25:26 PM

James!: Looks like they're only prohibiting sub-dermal implants. The rest of the bill looks to be pretty reasonable.

It mostly codifies artist apprenticeships.

The Bill


This. The only "prohibition" addition is at the end, and it's only about implants. The rest seems to be just adding "implants" to the existing regulatory code and other definitions. I don't see anything about banning tattooing.

/what tattooing might look like:
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-08-21 07:28:30 PM

yarshman: Don't go to uncle bob, then. In Kentucky, we're scrutinized properly, from tests to ensure that your sterilization equipment is in working order down to what color leather your chairs are, and the health department's rating has to be placed where the patrons can clearly see. Most shops, as is likely the case with salons, get most business by word of mouth, so running a filthy shop equates to running the shop into the ground. I'm sure a stylist or barber needs to keep a clean shop, but the scrutiny which a tattoo and piercing studio undergoes is marginally higher, as "jabbing people with needles or poking holes in a body" should be. We renew our licenses as frequently as we're required, and making sure customers are healthy and happy is paramount. Thank you.


What difference does the color of the leather make?
 
2013-08-21 07:34:24 PM

Amos Quito: [forum.bodybuildingpro.com image 680x843]

Is cross branding still allowed?


Wait... that looks photoshopped...

You colored his hair, didn't you?
 
2013-08-21 07:42:12 PM
while i personally think marking your body up with ink and burning things into your body is kinda stupid ,i dont see any reason for the government,any government,to have a say in the matter. sticking things under your skin to give the appearence of horns or other things as well,i find particularly dumb. you can do whatever you want,but people can also think whatever they want. like it or not,when you present an image that some may find disturbing,those people will be disturbed and may make judgements,unfounded or not, about you. dont blame society if you do things to yourself to look like an outsider. you better have real big skills and a reputation to match if you chose to mark yourself up and look for a job.
 
2013-08-21 07:43:51 PM
So this is how the Republican "small government" works? Crushing small businesses and controlling what people do to their own bodies??

/why aren't these guys voted in everywhere???
 
2013-08-21 07:46:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So fair is fair, for years all the people in Oklahoma had to drive to R-Kansas for tattoos and body piercing. We allowed it a few years ago. I guess it's time for Oklahoma to make a little revenue.


That's the 1st thought that popped in my head too. My bf went to Arkansas to get his tattoo before it was legal here. But I'll be surprised if this bill passes. They have a lot of tattoo parlors.
 
2013-08-21 07:47:53 PM

Somacandra: For example: If there is no autoclave, I won't patronize that business and I will tell others to avoid it.


I don't know.  I think I'd like to see evidence that it's actually used.  Either that or use the modern solution - move away from syringes and needles you reuse to disposables.

/doesn't have tattoos.
 
2013-08-21 07:50:26 PM
One: it's Arkansas, people...

Two: first higher court challenge will destroy the piercing amendment on constitutional grounds.

Three: it's Arkansas...

Four: some things need to be regulated, and with body mods, (tats, piercings and such) the risk for infection can be rather high, even after a sterile procedure, so why would you want to increase the risk by letting some drunk take a needle soaked in vodak to your body?

Five: need I say it again?

/tatted, pierced and working a real job.
//back to the office, maggot!
 
2013-08-21 07:53:57 PM

abhorrent1: Scarification is not a tattoo and dermal implants are stupid. So who cares.


The people who don't share your opinion.
 
2013-08-21 08:05:12 PM
pikof.com
 
2013-08-21 08:18:02 PM

skinink: First of all, if you're looking at the tattoo epidemic as a way to express your individualism, then it is obvious to me that you don't know the meaning of the word. How can you truly show any type of individualism by taking part in a movement that encompasses thousands, if not millions, of people? At this point, no matter how hard you try, you cannot get a tattoo that someone doesn't already have. The idea that somehow scarring your flesh with some insipid symbol or demonic imagery will say to people you're a free thinker is truly misguided. The issue lies with your own personal self-esteem.

If you're a person who feels a desire to tattoo himself, you're one of two types of people. The first group is drawn to tattooing because of a lack of self-respect and a love for themselves and for who they are, which causes these feelings to manifest. "If I had a cool tattoo, maybe then girls will notice me." Or "If I get a tattoo, guys will think I'm sexy." Once the root of the action is realized as being that of a desperate ploy for attention due to not appreciating themselves for who they are, and that they are placing that needed feeling of acceptance in the hands of others, the true motivations become clear.

Another personality type is the person who thinks way too much of themselves. The idea that someone may not notice them is unacceptable. They're awesome. A demi-god among us. This sad delusional state almost always manifests in over adornment. Be it tattoos, gold jewelry or outlandish silly outfits. However, all of this is just the wrapping to a package of arrogance, self-centeredness and an inflating feeling of self-importance commonly known as being a douchbag.


I'm not getting the exact same tattoo in the exact same spot as somebody else. When I get a tattoo, I think "I'll have a tattoo." And I'm glad you think I'm a douchebag. I think the same of you.
 
2013-08-21 08:23:39 PM

scottydoesntknow: Specifically, Irvin's 387 bill would slap a state ban on scarification tattoos as well as dermal implants.

While I think both of these are just unbelievably stupid, I support any person's right to get one.


That's the thing - I think the state's doing something silly here. The state should be regulating those procedures, by charging a hefty licensing fee and using the proceeds of that fee to ensure compliance to appropriate standards. The state shouldn't be banning those procedures, especially as they can be done with a reasonable amount of safety by trained professionals. Someone's exploiting a "for the children" excuse, I think, to dodge the problem. The fun part is that this doesn't punish the recipients, just the practitioners - so, they're just driving revenue to other states as the recipients take a long drive to get their body art.

Washington state, for example, regulates scarification (as "body art") rather nicely under RCW 18.300. Complete a course on bloodborne pathogens, pay $250, and you can be licensed for body art, body piercing, tattooing, or permanent cosmetics in Washington.
 
2013-08-21 08:25:45 PM
I'm sure it's been said already, but introducing a bill /= Arkansas is banning. Just wanted to put that out there. My state's not that crazy.
 
2013-08-21 08:36:47 PM

Keigh: ::sigh::


Do your research, people.

The offending bill was amended upon reaching the House, and subsequently made less invasive in its final form.
checks and balances works!


And has worked over and over again when it's allowed to. I've seen far too many of this type of story on Fark. One house of a state legislature writes a bill, and everyone is up in arms over some aspect of it, but what doesn't make fark is that it's already been fixed by amendment.
 
2013-08-21 08:40:22 PM
FTA:

"Besides civil liberties advocates and the tattoo industry clearly opposing a law, which would cripple self-expression..."

Because if you can't get a screw in your forehead, that's it for self-expression. Not a word will be heard by anyone in the state after this...
 
2013-08-21 08:40:56 PM

skinink: First of all, if you're looking at the tattoo epidemic as a way to express your individualism, then it is obvious to me that you don't know the meaning of the word. How can you truly show any type of individualism by taking part in a movement that encompasses thousands, if not millions, of people? At this point, no matter how hard you try, you cannot get a tattoo that someone doesn't already have. The idea that somehow scarring your flesh with some insipid symbol or demonic imagery will say to people you're a free thinker is truly misguided. The issue lies with your own personal self-esteem.

If you're a person who feels a desire to tattoo himself, you're one of two types of people. The first group is drawn to tattooing because of a lack of self-respect and a love for themselves and for who they are, which causes these feelings to manifest. "If I had a cool tattoo, maybe then girls will notice me." Or "If I get a tattoo, guys will think I'm sexy." Once the root of the action is realized as being that of a desperate ploy for attention due to not appreciating themselves for who they are, and that they are placing that needed feeling of acceptance in the hands of others, the true motivations become clear.

Another personality type is the person who thinks way too much of themselves. The idea that someone may not notice them is unacceptable. They're awesome. A demi-god among us. This sad delusional state almost always manifests in over adornment. Be it tattoos, gold jewelry or outlandish silly outfits. However, all of this is just the wrapping to a package of arrogance, self-centeredness and an inflating feeling of self-importance commonly known as being a douchbag.


You're the one coming across as a douchebag, buddy.  (does not and will not ever get a tattoo)
 
2013-08-21 08:43:01 PM

pedobearapproved: One house of a state legislature writes a bill, and everyone is up in arms over some aspect of it, but what doesn't make fark is that it's already been fixed by amendment.


Nonetheless, nothing will ever change the fact that the bill was written, introduced, and taken seriously by at least some elected representatives in its original ludicrous form.
 
2013-08-21 08:49:40 PM
skinink:At this point, no matter how hard you try, you cannot get a tattoo that someone doesn't already have.

i.imgur.com


Find me one person who has this and then I'll take your argument seriously
 
2013-08-21 09:02:50 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: FTA:

"Besides civil liberties advocates and the tattoo industry clearly opposing a law, which would cripple self-expression..."

Because if you can't get a screw in your forehead, that's it for self-expression. Not a word will be heard by anyone in the state after this...


Of course not, there will be plenty of self expression, all done within the confines of what the state deems acceptable. You have the unfettered freedom to select between Self Expression A, Self Expression B, or Self Expression C. Only a Commie would need any more than that.
 
2013-08-21 09:11:59 PM

propasaurus: skinink: First of all, if you're looking at the tattoo epidemic as a way to express your individualism, then it is obvious to me that you don't know the meaning of the word. How can you truly show any type of individualism by taking part in a movement that encompasses thousands, if not millions, of people? At this point, no matter how hard you try, you cannot get a tattoo that someone doesn't already have. The idea that somehow scarring your flesh with some insipid symbol or demonic imagery will say to people you're a free thinker is truly misguided. The issue lies with your own personal self-esteem.

If you're a person who feels a desire to tattoo himself, you're one of two types of people. The first group is drawn to tattooing because of a lack of self-respect and a love for themselves and for who they are, which causes these feelings to manifest. "If I had a cool tattoo, maybe then girls will notice me." Or "If I get a tattoo, guys will think I'm sexy." Once the root of the action is realized as being that of a desperate ploy for attention due to not appreciating themselves for who they are, and that they are placing that needed feeling of acceptance in the hands of others, the true motivations become clear.

Another personality type is the person who thinks way too much of themselves. The idea that someone may not notice them is unacceptable. They're awesome. A demi-god among us. This sad delusional state almost always manifests in over adornment. Be it tattoos, gold jewelry or outlandish silly outfits. However, all of this is just the wrapping to a package of arrogance, self-centeredness and an inflating feeling of self-importance commonly known as being a douchbag.

This, from someone named 'skin ink.'


Tattoo hipster, perhaps?  Liked tattooing before it was cool, yo!  Now all these young pricks, they just doin' it because everybody else is doin' it.  Damned kids.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report