New Hampshire Representative Timothy Horrigan (D-Durham) is outraged over what he describes as “a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The violation? People on public assistance cannot use EBT cards to buy guns. He is objecting to legislation barring the use of EBT cards for this purpose and denying people on welfare to hunt and defend themselves with guns.
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.
Horrigan presumably wants the reference to “firearms” deleted.
Horrigan does not appear to be a gun advocate but rather believes that welfare recipients should be able to use the money without such limitations. He simply used the second amendment argument to make this point. He opposed the two Bush campaigns and has a low rating by the NRA. His website also notes that he is looking for a job.
Putting aside the firearms issue, do you believe that public assistance recipients should be able to use their cards like cash for any purchase?
Gun Stamps!
That’s a great one, Dredd.
Do you suppose it might make a nice new shiny plank of the Republican platform?
At last we have found a social program that the right can embrace!
And who supports the idea that UK citizens ,having been disarmed , are likelier to be a victim of assault than one in the US? Why the American Spectator, that’s who. They lean just a tad right.
http://spectator.org/articles/34133/absence-guns
I do believe there are far fewer gun homicides and suicides in the UK. So there’s that.
Can gun stamps be far behind?
Feynman,
We have our own breed of wackos up here in the Northeast–and some of them reside in the “Live Free or Die” state.
If you folks don’t think booze, drugs, guns, etc. are bartered for w/ EBT cards well then you’ve not spent any time in the ‘hood..
“Live Free or Die.” That should give you incredulous folks some clue.
I have 2 nieces going to the University of NH and this guy is their representative. I have to ask their thoughts.
I grew up in New England and spent a lot of time working and recreating in NH. It is a “unique” state. Vermont used to be like NH and Maine until it got gentrified by NY carpetbaggers. Think of the diversity of these 3 people who all worked on SNL, Adam Sandler, Sarah Silverman, and Seth Meyers. All NHers.
The guy is a nut and I have no idea why he is reelected to office in NH. But the world is a very funny place. And many are interested in this story. For instance, Breitbart….
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/07/NH-Rep-Welfare-Recipients-Should-Be-Able-To-Buy-Guns-With-EBT-Cards
A gun in every holster! Teaching food stamp recipients to hunt their own food, novel idea. How do we know everyone who buys their own gun with their own funds won’t use the gun for illegal purposes?
Seriously though, these funds should be used for food only. Obviously. I don’t think its legal to allow food stamps as tender for tattoos.
Having legal access does not mean it needs to be free. The exact same point has been made about birth control pills.
Birth control pills should be treated as any other prescription medicine (drug). This is between a woman and her doctor, not between the government and religion.
rafflaw – it is not important that everyone HAS a gun. It is important that everyone has the RIGHT to own a gun. That is a big difference.
Our founders created these rules because they were tyrannized by a government that disarmed the population. After Culloden in the 1745, Great Britain made it illegal for Scots to either own a weapon (such as a Claymore) or wear their clan’s plaid.
Over and over again, history has proven that a disarmed population falls under the sway of dictators. And it is unwise to keep repeating an experiment and expect a different result.
We have only to look to England to see what happens when a population is disarmed by their government. In England, if someone breaks into your home and assaults you, and you have a weapon illegally and defend yourself, you will be prosecuted. Nowadays, robbers wait until people are home to rob them, because they have to turn their house alarms off to enter. The chances of being violently assaulted in England are MUCH higher than they are here. People often hide in their rooms, listening to the sound of a break-in downstairs, and hoping and praying they don’t come upstairs to beat out of them if they have any more money in the bank.
I do think there should be limitations on what the funds can be used for. Taxpayers support giving the poor food and shelter, but that support sours when those funds are used for tattoos, strip clubs, drugs, alcohol, etc. I think that benefits should be used for food, housing, transportation, clothing, and any other basic need that is agreed upon. Any other use should be flagged and given some sort of consequence.
I support the 2nd amendment, but food stamps are for food, and are not intended for other purchases. I would support using EBT for hunting and fishing permits, since, by definition, it would provide food. It is an interesting argument that guns and ammunition could be used for hunting, which can put food on the table. I have hunters in my family, and they keep their freezer stocked with wild game, birds, and fish that feeds them year round. The animal had a less stressful end, and the meat is healthier and costs less than anything you could get at a grocery store.
So is there any way that firearms and ammo purchases can be proven to be used for hunting? No. I believe the chances are slim that someone who knows how to hunt would not already own or have access to firearms. It is statistically unlikely that someone who did not even own a weapon would use food stamps to buy guns and ammo, and then successfully hunt for food on the table.
I do believe that benefits should be allowed for fishing licenses, tackle, and bait as well as gardening supplies because, again, by definition, the activity provides fresh food.
Here we come to an argument that has been made in many other political topics: giving someone legal access does not mean that it needs to be free. People with a clean record on food stamps and other benefits have legal access to owning guns, but that does not mean that it needs to be free.
Certainly there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis done in this area with regards to providing the family with food from legally hunted wildlife. That comes to usually hundreds of dollars per pound of meat on ones plate and should be enough to dissuade anyone’s giving this ricochet a job*!* He’s gonna need those food stamps ‘eh?
If it is so important and necessary for everyone to have a gun, why shouldn’t they be added to the food stamp eligible list? Having a gun is as important as eating…right?
I am clearly not against most people having guns, however, not on an EBT card. They can find other ways to raise the cash. Crowdsourcing comes to mind. They could get on Kickstarter to ask for funds to buy the gun.
Well that definitely beats teaching man to fish.
With a gun a man can get a meal, a nice car, a house…. heck there’s just no end to the things a man can do with a gun.
‘I was pretty satisfied with the food stamps, but now with a gun I can push my indifference curve right up there with the guys on wall street.’
The name of the program is FOOD stamps, not gun stamps. If a recipient of Food Stamps can somehow obtain food without government assistance, then their benefits should go to someone who needs food and not guns.
Hello. Food stamps are for FOOD! Period! You can’t buy alcohol or guns. Is this guy serious? And I hope he finds a job real soon before he further loses his mind!
This would be the death nell of the food stamp program.