It’s a pretty good bet that any law named after a child is a lousy one.
He’s referencing “Sarah’s Law” here but he’s right: laws passed in the emotional wake of one very specific crime are bound to be problematic. That’s doubly true if it’s done “for the children.”
I tell him: 
I wonder, however how many other things that can be applied to. As an example, let’s consider the anti- oil-drilling laws that popped up after a spill in California, to name but one.
At some point, regardless of the original topic, the logic of unintended consequences leads us to the conclusion that governmental response invariably makes our original problem worse.
What I didn’t say there, is that such a conclusion is problematic for people like Drum, who for example and by my reading, figures that all problems can be solved by governmental intervention. Drum’s conclusion here is quite logical, but I will guarantee you he will never take that thought to it’s logical conclusion. Witness; Does he not still shill for Democrats?