Do you think you should be able to use EBT to buy guns - this Sen. proposed a law

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
Do you think people on EBT/Welfare should be able to use that money to purchase guns?


This Demrocratic senator thinks so and has proposed a new law that allows it. Ironically, he is known to be very anti-gun.



I think that someone on EBT who is not a felon or prohibited from purchasing a gun should be able to use it to purchase a gun, especially for protection because so many people on EBT live in crime ridden neighborhoods.



I disagree with using EBT money to buy tobacco, booze, and lottery tickets. I can understand food and clothing and necessitities but boose, tobacco, and lottery tickets aren't necessities. Can you imagine if someone on EBT used your tax dollars to win the $350 million dollar lottery?


He says that people aren't "living high off the hog" on EBT but he's wrong on that too. There are plenty of good people on EBT but there is also plenty of people who are able-bodied and can work and don't need to be on EBT also and many of these people live on EBT for their entire lives. Minnesota did a study and found that if you work full-time minimum wage you earn roughly $15,556 a year and someone on EBT earns roughly $33,423 a year. Where's the incentive to work? A smart person would actually be better of not working. Obviously different states give out different amounts of money for EBT/Welfare.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-bill-blocking-gun-purchases-with-ebt-cards/




Democrat lawmaker blasts bill blocking gun purchases with EBT cards

Published May 09, 2014·
FoxNews.com


A New Hampshire Democrat lawmaker is speaking out against a bill that restricts what people can buy with government entitlement funds, saying booze, tobacco, lottery tickets and even guns should be permitted.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows is all I can say," Sam Cohen, executive vice president of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, told FoxNews.com. "I'm surprised by his position. Horrigan is known as an anti-gun, left-wing politician, and I wouldn't expect to be on the same side."

“Nobody is living high off the hog off of this,” he said, claiming that the average EBT user receives $215 a month. "There is a perception that these funds would be misused by the recipient, and while there are probably some problems, most of them are good people.”
Click to expand...
 
Why don't you think so?



Not sure self-defense should be denied because one is poor. Same with not allowing legal gun possession in government housing.
 
Bad idea, the premise that EBT cards are acceptable is flawed.

This country was founded to give everyone the freedom to achieve the American dream.....it didn't guarantee everyone would get the same results. EBT cards are a misguided attempt to give everyone the same results. Founding Fathers would be sick to see what the government they started has turned into.
 
No! Our Tax dollars should not be used to buy guns. Unless its for the military. If they want a gun they can get a JOB and buy the gun they want. To many already sucking off the Public nipple now. GET A JOB AND BUY WHAT YOU WANT.:) Next thing they will want to use that card to buy a boat or a bottle of booze motorcycle etc. I thought it was for FOOD.
 
If we're talking about EBT "cash assistance" (TANF), then it can absolutely be used for guns--can be used for anything. You can take that money off the card as cash by making a withdrawal just as you would with a debit card.

For EBT "food stamps," that's a different story. It's specifically designated as "food" for a reason. I don't support transforming food assistance (meant for basic survival) into cash assistance.
 
No EBT is for food.

There are separate programs that give plain cash, I have less of a problem with people using those funds for a gun. But at the same time guns are closer to luxuries than necessities, especially when we're not talking about someones first gun.
 
It also said the average amount was $215 per month, I don't think they will be buying many weapons with that.
 
Unless .gov wants to subsidize all citizens gun purchases they need to stay out of it.

But I'd be all for private donation money going toward arming and training citizens in high crime areas, hell that may be more effective than enforcement.
 
If we accept the premise that free men (i.e. not wards of the state) should be given subsidization in times of hardship, I believe we should defer to their judgment as far as how their money should best be spent. Pretending we strangers or random bureaucrats can make decisions for free individuals better than they can is a slippery slope...

TCB
 
I just looked it up, and it looks like it depends on the state what they refer to the various programs. Some states, EBT means both. Some it just means food.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Though I still have a problem with public money going to fund luxury items. The problem I see here is it takes away some "luxury" items and leaves others, so I kinda see the guy's point.
 
Better idea - if EBT recipients need funds for working firearms, pass laws that the police have to take all seized crime guns to a local gunsmith who determines if they are functional and usable, Then the functional firearm is provided to the EBT car holder at no cost. EBT holder is responsible for purchase of ammunition. No choice, random selection - you might get a double barrel shotgun, a 22lr bolt action rifle, or a 38 revolver. One gun provided per card holder per lifetime. That's a redistribution program that could work. ;)
 
"Though I still have a problem with public money going to fund luxury items"
A means of self-defense for yourself in the middle of a ruthless warzone of gangs, organized crime, and drug users is a luxury? Electricity is a far greater luxury, yet it has been subsidized forever for these folks.

"Better idea - if EBT recipients need funds for working firearms, pass laws that the police have to take all seized crime guns to a local gunsmith who determines if they are functional and usable, Then the functional firearm is provided to the EBT car holder at no cost. EBT holder is responsible for purchase of ammunition."
I like the premise, but knowing how city governance works, reissuing seized guns is probably somehow more expensive than buying cheap derringers or pot-metal 9mm's. And while it's admirable to 'make them contribute something' in the form of the ammo, many of these folks live in areas without gun stores nearby (because they're anti hot-beds), and will never shoot through even a box of the stuff since practice costs too much. It'd be nice if they could contribute resources toward their own self defense since they'd doubtless value it more, but the fact is they are in the situation they are because they can't contribute much of anything. I think requiring them to attend safety training first with maybe some practice shots with a small quantity of free ammo is enough sacrifice (they do still have to coordinate how to get to the training and how to get the time off if they are employed/have kids, so it's not like it's bone-headed simple for all of them to jaunt over to the training area)

"No choice, random selection - you might get a double barrel shotgun, a 22lr bolt action rifle, or a 38 revolver"
I feel bad for the guy who gets a S&W 1006 or Automag (it happens :D)

TCB
 
Oh yeah, I remember a town in Texas that bought some two dozen shotguns to distribute to the poor in crime-ridden areas. It got a bunch of play on the airwaves and was of course mostly a publicity stunt for the politician orchestrating it (not unlike a buy back). But... I haven't heard a followup story about blood in the streets or the guns being used to hold up liquor stores. And you know the press would be all over it if such was the case. If the crime rate held steady or even went down, we'd never hear about it. Anyone hear of a followup to that tale?

TCB
 
I think people who are on welfare have the same rights as anyone else. But whipping out their EBT card at a gunshop goes a bit past my sense of fairness to the people who are actually paying for that check. Many of the welfare (and other subsidy) receipients (<50 years old) I know have "stuff" going on that generates income that is not reported to the IRS for taxation. If they want a firearm, they can get one in the same way I do.
 
NO! Subsidies should only be used for basic necessities. They certainly have the right to defend themselves, but if they can spend $200 for a gun instead of food, maybe they don't really need subsidies?

I have the right to free speech, but don't expect the gubment to buy me a radio/TV station...
 
I get food stamps because of my level of disability income, but I only get $15.00 a month. And before I started receiving disability I only got $200.00 a month. While I could buy canned food with that money I couldn't buy a can opener to open the food, or even the means to cook that food.
 
I disagree with EBT almost entirely. Circumstances arise where a person needs help, but a hungry person may be more inclined to work if that's the only guaranteed way for him to get his cheeseburger. Giving these people the opportunity to buy guns with their EBT is even worse. A lot of them already sell half the crap they get for cigarette money anyways so letting them buy guns just makes it worse. What's next, the layaway purchase of jewelry and fancy car parts?

EBT would be ok for hunting licenses and ammo to take game with in my book, but to use it to buy the smiff snubbie or a keltec, absolutely not.
 
I would support an organization where people can donate to a fund which would enable the less fortunate to buy a basic firearm for protection. I don't think it should come out of taxes UNLESS someone wants to donate a portion of their tax refund to such a fund.
.
 
At least you guys are more compassionate than on another gun site. Where some advocate for the total abolishment of Welfare, Soc Sec, and any other assistance so that even if you are unable to work due to age or disability they want to "let nature take it's course." So that you have the disabled and the aged starving to death and homeless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Odd Job
Odd Job
C
  • Locked
Gun Violence Renews Legislative Debate
Replies
1
Views
486
Standing Wolf
S
H
  • Locked
What do you think of Colton Harris-Moore?
Replies
2
Views
318
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
W
  • Locked
If gun laws made you safe. D.C. would be the safest place in the country.
Replies
7
Views
561
Jayman
J
N
  • Locked
Assault-gun ban unlikely (IN)
Replies
9
Views
1K
garrettwc
G
Back
Top