Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: New Hampshire Rep: Food Stamp Recipients Should Be Able to Buy Guns with EBT Cards

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    New Hampshire Rep: Food Stamp Recipients Should Be Able to Buy Guns with EBT Cards

    "On May 7th New Hampshire Representative Timothy Horrigan (D-Durham) stood on the state house floor and argued against legislation forbidding the use of EBT cards for guns, saying such a ban "is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment."

    The legislation--SB203--says:

    Any person who receives public assistance is prohibited from using an EBT card or cash obtained with an EBT card to gamble or to purchase tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, lottery tickets, firearms, or adult entertainment.

    SB203 also prohibits using "an EBT card or cash obtained with an EBT card" for "Tattoos and Body Piercing."

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...With-EBT-Cards
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    These are like food stamps right? The cards replaced food stamps. I don't know if one could buy a gun with food stamps but I think that they could have.

    So I would agree .... guns and ammo should be OK.

    And no porn? Waht????

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    another example of .................

    a Village Idiot who got elected to the State Legislature. I don't mind paying for my own guns but I dont' want to have to pay for somebody else's especially if they're too lazy to get off their butt and earn their own money to buy them.
    Last edited by RK3369; 05-08-2014 at 02:47 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
    a Village Idiot who got elected to the State Legislature. I don't mind paying for my own guns but I dont' want to have to pay for somebody else's especially if they're too lazy to get off their butt and earn their own money to buy them.
    Agree. EBT cards should not even exist (in their taxpayer-funded form; it would be alright if it were private donations managed by a private entity).

    That said, their use is already too open-ended: I see people who seem to breed like rabbits with an entire cart full of junk food and snacks. I see obese, unwashed homeless enter the library at times with their hands full of junk food, only to sit down and play some kind of fantasy game online.

    If my tax money is stolen to fund their family's food, at the very least it should be restricted to only buying vegetables, fruit, and the other basic food groups below the meat layer (with an exception made for dairy products; milk). Taxpayer money should not be stolen to provide for the unhealthy eating and obesity of these people.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Food Pyramid1.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	32.9 KB 
ID:	11579Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Food Pyramid2.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	28.9 KB 
ID:	11580
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 05-08-2014 at 03:10 PM. Reason: Formatting
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    These are like food stamps right? The cards replaced food stamps. I don't know if one could buy a gun with food stamps but I think that they could have.

    So I would agree .... guns and ammo should be OK.

    And no porn? Waht????
    Some folks receive cash assistance. The cash assistance is attached to the EBT/Bridge Card instead of having two separate cards. The cash assistance is in place for purchases the food assistance does not cover such as household products, toiletries, clothes, the list goes on. A card holder can not legally use their EBT (food or cash) for alcohol, tobacco, gambling, weed/meth/crack, etc. Instead, they go to an ATM, withdraw cash, and then make those purchases. Personally, I'd rather see them purchase firearms and ammo instead of the above but that's just me.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gallowmere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    220
    I just...what the hell? See? This is why we can't have nice things. We keep electing morons who take things just a bit too far...ya' know, they drive them off a damned cliff. Is this guy an anti-gun plant?

    Public assistance shouldn't exist at all, and it damned sure shouldn't be used to buy anything that isn't 100% required for daily sustenance. I'll agree to this only if it's guaranteed that the person will use said guns and ammo to hunt game for the purpose of eating it. What's that? There's no way to track such a thing? Welp, there goes that idea.
    Last edited by Gallowmere; 05-08-2014 at 08:12 PM.
    "Now, why believe in anything they praise,
    When one hand holds them the victor,
    While the other holds the shovel to their graves?"
    ~~~Claudio Sanchez

  7. #7
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    there is a new sign in the cooler at my local gas station "RED BULL NOW EBT ELIGIBLE, ALL SIZES!"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    and...................

    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    there is a new sign in the cooler at my local gas station "RED BULL NOW EBT ELIGIBLE, ALL SIZES!"
    soon to be followed by the sign saying : " Remington, Federal, Blazer, Fiocchi, all 9mm at reduced prices, now covered by EBT. get yours before supplies run out"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    If my tax money is stolen to fund their family's food, at the very least it should be restricted to only buying vegetables, fruit, and the other basic food groups below the meat layer (with an exception made for dairy products; milk). Taxpayer money should not be stolen to provide for the unhealthy eating and obesity of these people.
    And what if I think my stolen dollars should be used to purchase firearms for the indigent?

    Because I would firmly prefer these dollars be used to buy firearms, even over "vegetables". What makes my preferences less valid than yours? Might makes right?

    I'm sorry, but the only solution is to end such theft-and-redistribution. There is no high horse to stand on in terms of "as long as they exist, they should only be used for...". Especially not regarding issues even peripherally-related to right.

    Furthermore, categorically impugning those (or the judgment of those) who receive such subsidies (as opposed to those who envision and enact them) would require first demonstrating that they are not driven into indigency by government (taxation, overregulation, non-crime laws, etc), in order to create an intentional self-fulfilling prophecy of dependence. That would be a tall order, indeed.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-09-2014 at 01:05 PM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    And what if I think my stolen dollars should be used to purchase firearms for the indigent?

    Because I would firmly prefer these dollars be used to buy firearms, even over "vegetables". What makes my preferences less valid than yours? Might makes right?
    Then give your money to the indigent so they can buy firearms and ammo. That way you preserve your individual preference. But when you start aggregating my funds with your funds, and a bunch of politicians tells me they are taking the funds from you and me so that the indigent can afford to feed their faces, I want my funds used spoecifically for what they were confiscated for.

    I'm sorry, but the only solution is to end such theft-and-redistribution. There is no high horse to stand on in terms of "as long as they exist, they should only be used for...". Especially not regarding issues even peripherally-related to right.
    Unless you are arguing that confiscation of funds from those that have some to be given to those that have less should be stopped altogether, you must restrict the distribution of funds to the purpose they were confiscated for. If you want bto add funding the cost of firearms and ammo for the indigent, say so and pass laws/rules/regulations that either changes the distribution schedule to cover that or confiscates more funds from those that have less.

    Furthermore, categorically impugning those (or the judgment of those) who receive such subsidies (as opposed to those who envision and enact them) would require first demonstrating that they are not driven into indigency by government (taxation, overregulation, non-crime laws, etc), in order to create an intentional self-fulfilling prophecy of dependence. That would be a tall order, indeed.
    Who is impugning the indigent? I think everybody who is not in jail or locked up because they are a danger to themselves/cannot perform basic functions of self-care ought to have not only access to firearms but actually posses at least one they have selected for self defense (handgun, long gun, shotgun - they get to choose but only from the bin of basic, no-frills stuff).

    But since the issue is to what purpose the .gov allows the money they confiscate to be used, I say the .gov ought to have* the conviction to limit the use of those confiscated funds to the purpose they were confiscated for.

    And quite frankly, I disagree with the .gov on what the basic issue of firearms should be. Because of that, I think it better that I use my funds to directly provide the indigent with what I consider a better basic issue. YMMV, as always, on what that issue should be but I'm willing to bet most folks with a little bit of knowlege and experience would agree that the .gov basic issue is not what they would prefer to have.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Unless you are arguing that confiscation of funds from those that have some to be given to those that have less should be stopped altogether
    Severely curtailed at least. I find income and homesteaded-property taxes particularly abhorrent.

    you must restrict the distribution of funds to the purpose they were confiscated for.
    You've made the assertion. Now defend it, preferably on moral (rather than legalistic) grounds.

    If you want to add funding the cost of firearms and ammo for the indigent, say so and pass laws/rules/regulations that either changes the distribution schedule to cover that or confiscates more funds from those that have less.
    Who said anything about "add"? Attempting to extract an implication of more (i.e. net greater) redistribution from my post is a decided non-sequitur.

    It may be that you missed the point of my post, which was hardly to defend any subsidies whatsoever (nor necessarily to attack them).

    My view is that individuals (in general) deserve more trust than we give them credit for, especially when it comes to their own lives.

    Furthermore, I view the acquisition of money by the government as wholly distinct from the distribution of money to the various dependent/privileged classes. That is to say, whether or not a given instance of wealth redistribution is defensible/justifiable is largely ethically disconnected from how that redistributed wealth is used, in practice. (I'm giving the former only cursory consideration here.)

    My main point is that I see little justification for government to give citizens money (however acquired) and then tell them that money is only for caloric intake (which many indigent in this particular country do not lack for, I might add) rather than basic self-defense.

    Who is impugning the indigent? I think everybody who is not in jail or locked up because they are a danger to themselves/cannot perform basic functions of self-care ought to have not only access to firearms but actually posses at least one they have selected for self defense (handgun, long gun, shotgun - they get to choose but only from the bin of basic, no-frills stuff).
    First, a question: are you suggesting they be provided the means to obtain such a weapon if they lack said means (or at least convincingly profess to lack such means)?

    Second, a rebuttal: If the government gives an individual a sum of money, and the individual in his judgment elects to acquire a handgun with that money (instead of – but not in addition to – the e.g. food he might have acquired), you are absolutely impugning his judgment to deny him this liberty.

    But since the issue is to what purpose the .gov allows the money they confiscate to be used, I say the .gov ought to have* the conviction to limit the use of those confiscated funds to the purpose they were confiscated for.
    And is this purpose forever set in stone?

    And quite frankly, I disagree with the .gov on what the basic issue of firearms should be. Because of that, I think it better that I use my funds to directly provide the indigent with what I consider a better basic issue. YMMV, as always, on what that issue should be but I'm willing to bet most folks with a little bit of knowlege and experience would agree that the .gov basic issue is not what they would prefer to have.
    Of course I agree with you there.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-09-2014 at 02:03 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    they definately need EBT to cover that..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    there is a new sign in the cooler at my local gas station "RED BULL NOW EBT ELIGIBLE, ALL SIZES!"
    because it takes a lot of stamina to keep cranking out those babies............

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    ....

    You've made the assertion. Now defend it, preferably on moral (rather than legalistic) grounds.

    ....
    Perhaps you missed where I already did that?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Perhaps you missed where I already did that?
    Sure did. You said "must" and "ought" a lot, but still don't see any actual arguments.

    Evidently you aren't interested in discussion. Very well.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    And what if I think my stolen dollars should be used to purchase firearms for the indigent?

    Because I would firmly prefer these dollars be used to buy firearms, even over "vegetables". What makes my preferences less valid than yours? Might makes right?

    I'm sorry, but the only solution is to end such theft-and-redistribution. There is no high horse to stand on in terms of "as long as they exist, they should only be used for...". Especially not regarding issues even peripherally-related to right.

    Furthermore, categorically impugning those (or the judgment of those) who receive such subsidies (as opposed to those who envision and enact them) would require first demonstrating that they are not driven into indigency by government (taxation, overregulation, non-crime laws, etc), in order to create an intentional self-fulfilling prophecy of dependence. That would be a tall order, indeed.
    Might doesn't make right, it only dictates what is carried out in reality. You may have meant that as a tongue in cheek comment, but I do find it to be close to an insult, especially given my post history or simply the first lines of my post you responded to.

    I would prefer my dollars be spent on guns as well, but we both know the government has elected to spend it on whatever seems to advance its power/influence over the citizenry. So in this case, neither preference is more "valid", one is simply more in line with the original premise for the government-sanctioned theft of people's money (my "preference", as you termed it) and the other is more inline with what the individual would do (the "preference" you put forth, which I agree with as an individual, but you seem to have missed).

    I made no attempt to justify the existence of the theft of said monies. I simply stated that if the original premise for funding FOOD stamps was to allow for purchase of FOOD to provide sustenance to the recipients with government-sanctioned theft, then at least the government bureaucrats should have the decency to keep it that way. As one famous line goes "don't (whizz) down my back and tell me it's raining."

    I make it no secret that I am against the unlawful taking of anyone's honesty-acquired property* with the intent of "redistributing" it. Doesn't make me many friends when somebody always brings up food stamps.

    The last part I will not try to address, as I wouldn't want to be taken grossly out of context and be termed a racist... again (last time I was "racist" against my own race).



    *Stealing something back from a thief isn't stealing, IMO. YMMV
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 05-09-2014 at 11:21 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Timothy Horrigan is extremely hard-left, and anti-gun. He's just doing this to tweek conservatives who are trying to restrict EBT purchase to actual food, by challenging them to allow purchase of guns and ammo.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    EBT is already for food Tannif is the general funds someone may get.

    It should all be done away with.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Great idea! This way the newly "purchased" firearm and ammo can be utilized to obtain the other approved items without actually using the EBT card to obtain them.

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •