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. Jonathan, Some will whine if you use a Captcha Box, but they work and aren’t that bad. I say use one, it will make one less thing for you to deal w/.

  2. Allen

    Wrestling with the prince of air, principalities and dark powers won’t work.

    Dredd, No tunes for this thread? What’s up with that?

    Sorry Allen.

    How about Happiness is a Warm Food Stamp

  3. I looked it up on wikilepedia and Keebler is a Kracker. As for the spam, it comes in these little cans in the grocery store and you do not want to buy any and eat it. If you reverse the letters in spam, you get maps– the maps go back to the source of the spam. It is an old CIA trick. Which we are not supposed to reveal.

  4. Karen, you are mistaken.

    ‘This is why I encourage you to read other sources. ‘ If you wouldn’t mind, can we eliminate the encouragement? It seems condescending.

    You have repeatedly stated that you want innovation. That is what the waiver allowed. Republicans have long proclaimed they want Fed programs in the hands of the states. That is what the waiver provides. But apparently that control is only for Their states. It doesn’t work that way. Bottom line, I take a strong exception in your assertion that welfare reforms were ended by Obama. That is untrue.

    This type of reform is usually supported by Republicans. And though it waives certain federal requirements, the states will still have to meet federal standards (and establish their own benchmarks) under the waiver program.

    Further, the reforms hardly “gut” welfare reform or its welfare-to-work requirement. Instead, they aim to improve the program . Which you have repeatedly stated is your aim.

    Republicans in Utah and Nevada actually pushed for waivers. Utah, under Republican control, began calling for the waivers in 2011 (along with Nevada, also under Republican control). “Utah is especially interested in the development of waiver authority in the TANF grant,” Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) wrote in a letter to HHS after the decision was announced.

    Ultimately, the GOP ‘encouraged’ Utah and Nevada to disavow the waivers. They had lost their heads and forgotten that their first duty was to the Party – not their constituents.

    1. I wanted to drop a note to everyone that we are having an increasing problem with spam. The blog has been growing at an impressive rate and part of that success is the burden of attracting more spam. We have been deleting spam (particularly from one source) at a fast pace. If it continues, we will have to consider a Captcha box for a while to guarantee human commenters. I am sorry for those spam comments that are still coming through.

  5. Food stamps are used for food. That makes it hard for some folks to buy toothpaste, toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, birth control and other necessities. There are some who game the system but I’d rather see Ryan, et. al. go for the big guys gaming the system, i.e. the banksters, the military contractors, etc. All fraud in the food stamp system is less than pocket change when compared to huge amounts taken by fraud by the banks. It’s just easier to pick on those with little resources to begin with.

  6. Feynman – this is why I encourage you to read other sources. If your only source of information leans Left, then you can never hear the other side from their point of view. It is important that we hear both sides “from the horse’s mouth” to give each fair consideration.

    Now, you may still decide that a waiver is the best way to go, and that Liberal states will not water down a requirement that they oppose. But at least you will have a better understanding of what the objection was all about.

    And consider that consistently allowing a President to over-reach, ignoring the Separation of Powers, sets precedent. And one day there may be a President whose policies you oppose. The question is not do you agree with his policy; the question is the legality of the methods.

  7. Feynman:

    No, I was not mistaken about the work requirement. When it was implemented in 1996, the Left strongly opposed it. And yet unemployment halved within 5 years. Now the Obama Administration is trying to undo it via waiver, which is illegal administrative over-reach. Remember the separation of powers? A President cannot rule by picking and choosing which laws, or parts of laws, he wants. These changes need to come from Congress.

    The work requirement has been demonstrated effective (I’m a science geek, remember?), and Republicans claim that these waivers, in addition to being illegal overreach, water down an already lenient requirement.

    I do think that states should have leeway in many areas to find what methods work with their unique parameters. But this has been seen as an attempt by the Left to weaken a successful requirement that they have opposed since 1996.


  8. BFM, The same folks who hurl epithets are often the biggest PCers.

  9. So I guess what Karen means is that she was mistaken when saying:

    “There used to be a work requirement for the able bodied on Welfare, but that was removed.”

  10. I don’t recall – what are the food stamp benefits broken down by day? Isn’t it about $9? There’s not a lot of room there.

  11. No, I do not support cutting food stamps – only addressing fraud and putting together a system for benefits to be used for basic approved needs. And yes, I support any attempts at innovation in benefits that produce better outcomes.

    I would like the government to track outcomes – such as re-entry to the work force, length of time on assistance, income levels for a few years after benefits end – things like that so we can measure progress. And I want these figures available to the public (if they are not already.)

    I am a science geek. If a goal has not been met – ending child hunger, or helping families get successfully off of Welfare, then we need to examine why and adapt.

  12. Jon,

    You break my heart. You espouse free speech, yet you deny it. I am here only to protect guest bloggers which you fail to do. If you haven’t noticed, I only post on certain threads. Get an understanding of what’s wrong. You may have deleted my post. But I seem to detect a pattern on threads you post that have become very hostile and uncivil. You had to jump in and tell them so. Think about that before you delete this. Remember it’s already in the World Wide Web.

    You have a certain problem here and it’s not me. Deflect as much as you wish.

  13. You can’t even buy toilet paper with food stamps; and, that is more of a necessity than guns and ammo.

    1. Bonnie – I would think that would depend on the neighborhood. 😉

    1. Keebler, I have again deleted a comment under the civility rule. As I stated before, this is not the place to attack people or use a response to repeat the attack. This is getting rather old. You have one of the highest number of deletions on this site for incivility. Either comply with our civility policy or please move on to another blog if you feel that policy is wrongheaded or poorly administered.

  14. Aw thanks Darren you are the =^-^= ‘s meow. I hope this works.

  15. No, Karen, don’t go to the emoticon page. You’re better than that.

  16. The thread is drifting off course. Intermission time. Think before you post.

  17. P.S.

    Politifact found Romney’s assertions on the welfare work requirements

    “Pants on Fire”

Comments are closed.