delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Time and money have already been expended criminalizing the act of a 10 year old getting tatted up by the predominantly Republican Georgia State Legislature. Justify the compelling need to use additional government time and money decriminalizing a 10 year old's right to get a tat. I agree, if you're saying that no additional effort should be put forth in legalizing/degalizing it, but it's not like the government spent a bunch of effort to get a law passed and are setting up costly stings to catch perpetrators. There was a complaint lodged that the kid had a a tattoo, and the police responded. I definitely think that these few rare calls (because most tattoo artists will not apply a tattoo to a minor), areinsignificant compared to the needless effort needed to repeal the law... It's one of those laws that is far easier and less costly to enforce than to apply more government resources to something that's completely unnecessary for a child in the first place. Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 This has got to be one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. Body piercing your newborn = ok Getting a tattoo of your deceased brother = jail time It is small wonder this country has fallen. ^^This It doesn't get any more permanent than a hole in your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 ^^This It doesn't get any more permanent than a hole in your body. I stopped wearing an earring in like 1992 and the hole went away, FWIW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) I just googled it. A quick survey seems like it's about $80 to $500 per treatment, size and color and style of lasers being the factors. There may be cosmetic surgery issues also, but whatev's. It's possible, and doesn't cost a prohibitive amount of money to do it if you want to have it done. Memorializing your dead brother seems like something meaningful to me, even for a 10 yr old. Something I doubt will be removed in the future. Please, I'd love to quit bickering, but you all keep bringing up this one rare example, where I don't think the woman should be charged (and in an ideal world, only the artist should be charged in any case for taking money for an illegal tattoo). I''m quite positive that they didn't have this particular case in mind when they determined that there should be age restrictions on tattoos, so finding the one contingency doesn't make the practice right in all cases. And $80 to $500 for treatment, with no guarantee of removal, and how many "treatments" before it's gone? Not exactly cheap, but it doesn't matter, it's a personal adult decision, and there's no need to make excpetions (other than not prosecuting the ignorant like those who should know their occupational laws and restrictions better). Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) seems to me that some are arguing about the right age for tattoos and some are arguing about parental rights... and that's two completely different issues. Yes, and they've bizarrely managed to tie in parental rights with lifting age restrictions that are no more harmful than a 16-year driving age.... I don't know what's so hard to understand that tattoing your kids is not an inalienable right in this country, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Actually that's an interesting point... Since the tatto artist cannot engage into a contract with a minor, then a parent could literally force the child to be tattooed under your view. The child, by contract law could not have a say one way or the other. I find it baffling that not 1 person here is willing to challenge age restrictions like driving, but thinks that a person's body art should fall under parental jurisdiction. Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Please, I'd love to quit bickering, but you all keep bringing up this one rare example.... How many other examples of 10 yr olds (or younger) getting tattoos are there???? I think the whole point of a lot of people in this thread is the inanity of putting a legislatively mandated regulation on something like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I find it baffling that not 1 person here is willing to challenge age restrictions like driving, but thinks that a person's body art should fall under parental jurisdiction. Because they aren't anywhere near being the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 How many other examples of 10 yr olds (or younger) getting tattoos are there???? If there were no legislation, there would be oodles of examples of other juvenile tattoos... It's because of the law that there aren't many other examples. Legitimate tattoo operations don't tat kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Because they aren't anywhere near being the same thing. Okay, how about smoking, drinking, marriage, contracts.... We don't allow kids to do them, because we realize they're not mature enough to make these kind of adult decisions. But obviously I'm not going to change your mind, so keep lobbying for these all-important tattoos for kids that we can't possibly let them wait until they're 18 to decide for themselves... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 A reckless tattoo can't kill another. A reckless under-age driver can. How do you equate the two? I know this, if I had a farm and felt my child was smart and responsible enough to drive a vehicle on my private property, then I would have an issue with the govt telling me that I was wrong. See my post above, I'm not comparing driving to tattoos. I'm comparing the reasoning why we designate these as purely adult activities that kids don't take part in until their mature enough to handle the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I think the whole point of a lot of people in this thread is the inanity of putting a legislatively mandated regulation on something like this. The legislation is already in-place and what I can't figure out is the nature of the compelling need to repeal. The ban may or may not be insane, but what seems the most insane is the argument that there is now a compelling need to repeal the law. A 10 year old has a tattoo. The authoroties were alerted, the mother arrested, the mother released, now the court will deal with the issue of what, IF ANY, punishment is needed. I am satisfied with how the government is functioning up until now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 perhaps it just needs to be modified and the artist needs to have signed parental consent? The cost of repealing or modifying a law greatly exceeds extremely rare cases like this where it's actually needed to be enforced, and is utterly pointless.... What is so wrong with letting the individual decide when they turn 18, the legal age when you can enter into a contract like this anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Seems to me that if a parent is intelligent and loving enough and trying their best that they should be left alone. What if they are not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 One. He's eight weeks old, so I'm going to wait a few weeks before I take him down to the tattoo parlor. Doesn't sound like you've had enough time to regret making any piss-poor judgment calls regarding your kid(s) yet. You will eventually - because we all do. It's just part of parenting. So perhaps my perspective is colored with some empathy, knowing that not every parenting decision I've made was 100% perfect 100% of the time. Look, I wouldn't let my kids get a tattoo at age 10 either. But I'm not so sure imprisoning the parent who does is what's best for the child everyone's so interested in protecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 seems to me that some are arguing about the right age for tattoos and some are arguing about parental rights... and that's two completely different issues. So it is ok to carry a gun, kill people and die for your country while it is illegal to have a beer? This is the same argument. Stupid laws have no moral basis other then someone in this country and making a Athenaload of cash off this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Interesting the large number of states where tattooing is allowed with parental consent (and in some cases without even their presence, which is a bit scary)... And so hopefully showing that it's a very grey area for states should end this debate, because I'm perfectly happy with the current law in the state where I live, as is Opie and probably Az that there is no law on the books in their state... This actually ended up being a great example of how it's better for things to remain as local as possible to be more accountable to constituents, rather than relying on the federal government to try to implement one-size-fits-all solutions for regions where those ideas might conflict or not be accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Interesting the large number of states where tattooing is allowed with parental consent (and in some cases without even their presence, which is a bit scary)... And so hopefully showing that it's a very grey area for states should end this debate, because I'm perfectly happy with the current law in the state where I live, as is Opie and probably Az that there is no law on the books in their state... This actually ended up being a great example of how it's better for things to remain as local as possible to be more accountable to constituents, rather than relying on the federal government to try to implement one-size-fits-all solutions for regions where those ideas might conflict or not be accepted. It is not on the list, but Texas does not allow tattoos to anyone under 18 even with parental consent. Body piercing, however, is a-ok even without a parent present. I wonder which lobby paid more for this law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It is not on the list, but Texas does not allow tattoos to anyone under 18 even with parental consent. Body piercing, however, is a-ok even without a parent present. I wonder which lobby paid more for this law They tend to do both in the same shop in Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Not sure if anyone clicked on the link in the OP itself, but the news story has been updated with quotes from the police, and some more detail on the story: "Acworth Chief of Police Michael Wilkie told ABCNews.com in an emailed statement that the tattoo appeared “to be the work of an amateur” and said one police theory is that when Napier took the child to get a memorial tattoo similar to her own, she discovered it was illegal and took him somewhere where it could be done “illegally like a ‘jail house’ tattoo.” “Unfortunately, the mother has elected not to cooperate with the police any further in this investigation,” Wilkie said. “The tragedy of this is that the child’s tattoos are some sort of memorial to a sibling who was lost in a car accident a few years ago. I understand from the investigators that there are several memorial to the deceased child in the apartment where they live. It may be that professional or religious counseling for their/her grief would be more helpful than anything.” So lemme get this straight....the tattoo was not performed at a recognized tattoo parlor with safe conditions, but the theory is she went thru some underground method in order to get his accomplished? That implies that she was indeed told it was illegal, so searched for an alternative method to make it happen. Forget what I said earlier....she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (even though its only a misdemeanor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It is not on the list, but Texas does not allow tattoos to anyone under 18 even with parental consent. Body piercing, however, is a-ok even without a parent present. I wonder which lobby paid more for this law It is far more likely that lobbying had to do with it being enacted in states, than prohibited, which benefits no one financially as far as I can tell. I noticed it was the Southern states in particular where the laws are heavily represented, and it is no doubt in part moralistic, I won't deny that, but I think it also has to do with the liberty of a "kid to be a kid", without having to be subjected to a decision that should be made by oneself once they become an adult, what they want stamped upon their body. I just conjure up sick images when I think about what crazy things a kid, or worse a parent might influence, to stamp on their oblivious body. Forget what I said earlier....she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (even though its only a misdemeanor). Yes, in light of that I detract my sympathy for her. Whatever if you want to change tattoo laws, but I don't think anyone is in favor of jailhouse tattoos for minors. Perhaps that's why some states make it easy to not have to make that distinction with kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 its a good thing this is not about parents who refuse to get there kids immunized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 its a good thing this is not about parents who refuse to get there kids immunized. or spanking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 or spanking... or daycare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I stopped wearing an earring in like 1992 and the hole went away, FWIW Me too - stopped wearing one around 1993 and my hole is still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.