Let Them Eat Ammo: New Hampshire Rep Calls For Allowing Citizens To Buy Guns With Food Stamps

tim-horrigan-dogNew 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.

SB 203 states:

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?

150 thoughts on “Let Them Eat Ammo: New Hampshire Rep Calls For Allowing Citizens To Buy Guns With Food Stamps”

  1. Karen

    Re: Work requirements removed

    I found this on Politifact. It sounds like an innovation that you would approve.

    Since 1996, welfare has been administered through block grants to states through a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. TANF, as it’s called, limits how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are successfully moving people off welfare and and into the workforce.

    A memo from George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary at HHS, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states “of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority … to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.”

    The memo outlined, using the jargon of a federal bureaucracy, the kinds of waivers that would be considered. It suggested projects that “improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems” and “demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities,” to give two examples.

  2. Job requirements were removed from welfare? Are you speaking of the reform passed during the Clinton admin?

    I wasn’t aware that those requirements had been removed. Can you tell me more about that?


  3. Rcampbell, true enough, but it might get boring around here without them.

    1. Keebler, I have deleted another comment. I just posted a request to stop the personal remarks and you again reintroduced your theory that some posters are paid agents. Please return to the substance of the discussion or stop commenting.

  4. Annie, speak for yourself. I would be quite happy to see all conservatives leave…….the planet. I have only contempt for them and the damage they’ve done to America since 1980. They serve no useful purpose except to start wars, run up debt, attack the least vulnerable in our population and exult the pigs who take every advantage of those least vulnerable and on top of it all, push an unconstitutional theological agenda.

  5. Karen, liberals have left, not just conservatives. Sometimes we need to cognizant of other’s motives. I know you are an intelligent person.

  6. I meant to say “could drive away” not “would.” Typo.

    I didn’t meant to indicate I felt driven away; I was thinking of the people who have already left.

  7. He does not hate government programs. He opposes fraud, and has pointed out the current programs have not improved poverty. So he wants to make changes. He has repeatedly said that he does not want to get rid of food stamps, or hurt people who are doing the right thing.

    I do not agree with Ryan on all things.

    But from what I can tell, his position is that he wants there to be an incentive to work. There used to be a work requirement for the able bodied on Welfare, but that was removed. I think it’s reasonable to try to look for work. And I also think it’s reasonable that in a bad market, you should be willing to take the work you can get, instead of holding out for a plum. It should be a shared responsibility between the taxpayers and the recipient. And he wants to get rid of fraud. He wants it to pay more to work than to be on Welfare.

    One problem that needs to be addressed is that people get in a bind where they can’t accept jobs because they can’t afford to lose their benefits. Maybe a transitional assistance while they get on their feet with the job could be helpful.

    I’ve known several single moms whose relationships didn’t go where they thought it would. One was in a tight spot and on public assistance. It was a slow process, and very difficult to navigate through. From what I have seen, I wish it were more streamlined. She did not qualify for everything, so there was very little money. But there are some good programs out there. There was a program that provided day care while she took some classes. I don’t know which party came up with the idea, but I like it. It provides a means to better her situation, instead of just providing some assistance for the day. And she was required to complete the classes.

    Single moms get into impossible situations. They can’t find a job without interviewing, but they can’t interview unless their child is in daycare or school. Same thing with school. Any program that actually helps someone get out of their financial bind through moving up the ladder is a win all around.

    1. Annie – would you please send Karen the link to the WordPress emoticons. I did not keep mine.

  8. “Pretty evenly split.” See what I mean about perspective. Do you feel like it’s pretty evenly split, Karen? LOL!!

  9. That’s another great Republican line……’actually harm the target population’.

    Making them “slaves” some have said. Making them ‘lazy’ others have said.

  10. KarenS, Please don’t ever let anyone drive you away. I put my email out there for people who get dejected. Everything is relative. You have no idea how much pressure was put on Jonathan to have this be an echo chamber. The pressure is still there. We need to be strong. The name calling is now much better. I, and other non liberals, including but not limited to Byron[fka Bron] and DavidM were called liars, psychopaths, sociopaths, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. I had my deceased sister mocked. My email is ndspinelli@hotmail.com When I gave this to Paul a couple weeks ago I got some sketchy emails. So, I do this w/ trepidations but it’s worth it. This is not an invite to anyone but KarenS.I don’t want to rehash the past here and Jonathan really doesn’t want to. But, history is important. Perspective is important. Paul and you arriving here are in no small part to changes that were made in January. People threw EVERYTHING @ Byron and I. But, we remain, and you need to. So, I’ll do whatever I can to help.

    1. Ok, folks. I would appreciate it if we would not go further down this road into a resumed discussion of personalities and negative influences on the blog by posters. The subtle efforts to pick fights or pick around our civility rule is getting old. This threat is about gun rights and the use of public assistance. If that does not interest you, please find a subject that does.

    2. ” were called liars, psychopaths, sociopaths, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.”

      Now, Nick, it is the liars, psychopaths, sociopaths, racists, sexists, and homophobes that make the place interesting.

      Can you imagine trying to have a challenging, wide ranging conversation with a bunch of PC’ers who’s highest priority is not to offend?

      I don’t care what you argue as long as you have a little respect for the people and the evidence.

  11. And can someone explain to me how emoticons work? I am so uncool . . .

  12. Paul Ryan. The guy who has been on the government payroll his since his teens. But he hates the government and government social programs. How strange is that.?

    Yes, but, but, they only want to end the abuse.

    We’ll just cut a little bit here (bye-bye $45B) and a little bit there (bye-bye Medicare). Soon we’ll have everything allll fixed. 1950 all over again – this time without the unions.

  13. Knowing me, if I tried to follow both this civil post, and a free-for all blog, I’d probably forget which site I was on and accidentally flame out here.

  14. Annie – I could not and would not read or visit a blog with no civility rules. I don’t like mud wrestling or throwing poop!

    No, my complaint isn’t “poor me.” My issue is that no one really exchanges ideas when one side calls the other racists who hate the poor. And those deaf ears end up hurting us all, such as when programs are pushed through with great intentions that actually harm the target population.

    Things can be better, and they should be better.

  15. Karen, if you think it’s bad here, try being a liberal at the Althouse blog. This place is easy, very very easy as its pretty evenly split between conservatives and liberals. With the civility rules, you haven begun to see what can happen on a political forum without them. So quit yer whinin’. 😉

  16. See what I mean about prejudice against conservatives? I can see how it would just drive all non-Liberals away from the site. It seems so boring and confining to limit oneself to strictly like-minded people.

  17. Karen.

    Oh great. God bless the Republicans.

    Of COURSE they didn’t repair and continue the kids free lunch program. No, that wouldn’t do at all. Aren’t enough calories in the guidelines? Well, let’s fix that! We’ll make arrangements so you don’t get ANY calories so nobody can say the Republicans funded a program that was too low in calories.

    Certainly solved that problem, didn’t they?

    Now does anybody here wonder why Democrats might be a little wary when Republicans want to start messing with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA.?

    Here’s the bottom line. Republicans will KILL any social program. Pull the plug. Drown the baby.

    And this is a ‘Christian’ country.

    Jesus weeps.

Comments are closed.