Should We Ban Anyone With A Penis From The NH State House?

Speaker Norelli has pointed out--in defense of the recent Gun ban she supported--that many school children visit the state House, and that "everyone needs to feel safe and secure."  So if it's about  "protecting the children," why stop at the Joint Committee Gun ban?

Sex crimes against children are horrific, and most often perpetrated by men it seems, so we ought to expect (nay, demand) some kind of immediate action by the NH House Joint Facilities Committee to address the risk a penis presents to children who visit the New Hampshire State House.

We of course have absolutely no evidence of pedophilia in or on the State House grounds.   Why not use the same justification for the gun ban--no evidence of an actual threat--as grounds to ban anyone with a penis from the premises?   I mean let's be honest.  At any given time there are more d*icks per square inch at the State House (regardless of gender) than anywhere else in the entire Granite state.  

Normally the biggest risk they pose is to taxpayers, and freedom in general.  Of course taxpayers children are technically affected by the cost of government inflicted upon their parents and on the hook themselves later on, (not exactly a great way to deal with the supposed brain drain problem) so we clearly have a path for fiscal child abuse causation.  But that's actually ccalculable.  The Joint Committee has set its precedent with it's gun ban on feelings, things more abstract, so it only seems logical to apply it elsewhere in the same manner.  

And children are not the only one's at risk.  Potential rape victims of all ages deserve to feel safe and secure as well.  We are talking about a concealed weapon, no immediate sense of motive, and the potential for unanticipated urges.  A guy could get all worked up and whip that thing out at any moment, scaring the crap out of anyone nearby.   It would be irresponsible for us to just wait for it to happen.

Keeping d*cks out of the State House could solve a host of political problems both real and imagined.  But that's going to be a strike against the ban.  The d*ck lobbyists have a lot of money invested in local government.

Another strike is the potential legislative conflicts.

Speaker Norelli has made it clear in the past that a penis and a lack of personal responsibility are (in some cases) worthy of government protection.  School children who happen to find themselves at the wrong end of an improperly handled penis (that get pregnant) don't need to tell their parents if they seek an abortion.  So if someone happened to sneak a penis in under these circumstances, and actually impregnated a minor  how then could we prosecute the ban?  Who would we be permitted to notify if the school girl sought right to know protections? 

See this?  Now we have a huge mess.  But not to worry.  The penis ban won't be forthcoming. The gay lobby owns Norelli and the dem leadership, and there are plenty of people in the gay and lesbian community who happen to have penises or have considered getting one, not that there is anything wrong with that.  What you do with your disposable income is none of our business.

So with the metaphorical death of the penis ban, I suspect we best consider the next potential victim of the Joint committee's  arbitrary "protecting the children" defense.  Snacks over 100 calories per serving, followed by "no soda" rules, and no trans fats allowed on State House property are my guess.  I hear those are all dangerous to school children.  Oh, and here's a winner.  Any class that actually risks a visit with or without all these protections must first have the democrat approved student to teachers-union member ratio --to ensure an ideal learning environment--or they will be turned away at the door.

Comments

[Rick Barnes]

I love it! Funniest article I've read in a while.

One thing you missed was the issue of concealment. Sure it's easy to get worked up over an openly carried gun and/or penis but what about those concealed. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

In fact when I went to Concord to look up some documentation on an issue I had to deal with a "woman" with a rather large Adam's apple, I'm fairly sure "she" was concealing.

It's the penis/gun I don't know about that worries me most. Think about the trauma of bringing home a nice "lady" from a bar and get home to find she's concealing.

[pinko]

What a fragile little manhood you must possess, Steve - to feel so threatened by women.

You should relax. No nice woman would have anything to do with you.

[NH]

If they banned penises this would mean they'd have to ban half the women democrats, LOL

[Ed Naile]

Steve:

You pressed the magic button.

Write the word penis and Raybo comes to the comments section like a moth to a flame.

Next will be a certain state Rep.

(But then you knew that:)