The Moral Wisdom of Lawmakers
is comparable to the cleanliness of sewers
Old enough for sex, too young to see pictures of guns. This must be the Golden State.
California, you may remember, is very proud of all the things that 12 year-olds can do without their parents knowing about it or approving any of it: They can get birth control and abortions, they can get medical treatment for “intimate partner violence,” they can get medication for their STDs, and on and on, in a really empowering list of tween privileges. Recently, the Senate passed a bill that has (for now) stalled in the Assembly, SB 866, which would allow children to get mRNA injections without parental knowledge or consent.
Senators explained, during the debate over SB 866, that none of this is a big deal, ‘cause 12 year-olds can totally handle all that stuff — they just need to have the privacy to deal with it, in mature and thoughtful consultation with the medical professionals who treat their preteen anal warts. Stop being a hater, prude!
Now: The California legislature also passed a bill in this legislative session, AB 2571, that prohibits “a firearm industry member, as defined, from advertising or marketing any firearm-related product, as defined, in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” Gavin Newsom has signed this one into law, so now begins the effort in court to figure out if any of it is at all enforceable.
One of the provisions of the bill prohibits the firearms industry from offering “brand name merchandise for minors, including but not limited to, hats, t-shirts or other clothing, toys, games, stuffed animals, that promotes a firearm industry member or firearm-related product.” So a 17 year-old in a Glock gimme cap is worth a $25,000 civil penalty, ‘cause it might make children shoot people.
Also, the thing about prohibiting gun-themed stuffed animals hit me the hardest, because it rules out that line of Mk-19 unicorn plushies I wanted to sell to preschools.
But here’s the punchline: The bill argues for the need to protect children from gun imagery on the following premises about the attractiveness of guns, which you can read for yourself in the text of the bill:
These weapons are especially dangerous in the hands of minors because current research and scientific evidence shows that minors are more impulsive, more likely to engage in risky and reckless behavior, unduly influenced by peer pressure, motivated more by rewards than costs or negative consequences, less likely to consider the future consequences of their actions and decisions, and less able to control themselves in emotionally arousing situations.
Twelve year-olds can handle lots of hot sex and intimate partner violence, and all the consequences of all that hard sexy action, but they can’t see a picture of a gun, because minors are more likely to be reckless and lose self-control in emotionally arousing situations. Good thing that getting sodomized and beaten as a 12 year-old isn’t emotionally arousing, right?
If the state capitol vanished into a burning sinkhole, I’d make the drive to cheer and keep the legislature from jumping out the windows to safety.
What the fuck is happening to our world?
I am from the law firm representing sewers and we are suing for slander after you had the temerity to compare us to lawmakers. The very idea!