Democrats demand EBT cards be usable for gun purchases

[SuMar]

Isn't allowing a person, who clearly doesn't have a job and living on assistance, to obtain a gun from their EBT card a bad idea? What is it they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures?" A person out of work and desperate for money, wouldn't one think that this person would use a gun to rob a store? Could this be the democrats way of setting up their argument for stricter gun laws?

 

[Meathead]

First of all, a democrat all for gun sales? ...

Seems to fly in the face of the officially authorized political narrative, doesn't it. Democrats aren't allowed to advocate for the 2nd Amendment! That would be like a Republican extolling the virtues of Roe V. Wade, right? The world wouldn't make sense! :

...And second with EBT cards?

What part of FOOD stamps does he not understand?

Although most if not all states have prohibitive requirements to receiving a small cash benefit to supplement the Food-only benefit, the EBT system is set up to accommodate both simultaneously.

What the Congressman is arguing against, and rightfully so, are legislative measures that may be intended to circumvent the rights of all EBT beneficiaries to engage in an activity explicitly protected by the Constitution, namely the right to legally purchase and own firearms. The right to self-protection is an apple that doesn't belong in the basket next to oranges like alcohol, gambling, and tobacco.

Its like clockwork on this board for the rw's to be against equal rights for all Americans and in favor of controlling what others spend money on.

Seriously? Maybe should call them crack stamps, ya think?

 

[eflatminor]

yeah, I don't think white trash trailer park welfare trash should be able to use their EBT cards to buy guns either.

Ridiculing poor people is such fun, isn't it? Especially when segregated by race.

Not a racist **** at all...

 

[PredFan]

It's funny watching lefties trip all over themselves. Anti-gun but pro 2nd if one is using an EBT card and if you disagree it's because you are racist because apparently only blacks and Hispanics use EBT cards.

You lefties are totally insane.

 

[Capstone]

Isn't allowing a person, who clearly doesn't have a job and living on assistance, to obtain a gun from their EBT card a bad idea? What is it they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures?" A person out of work and desperate for money, wouldn't one think that this person would use a gun to rob a store? Could this be the democrats way of setting up their argument for stricter gun laws?

Pardon my French, but that's a fresh-from-the-oven crock of shit.

The applicability of Constitutional rights isn't contingent on socioeconomic factors for good reason. When a large enough majority becomes collectively fed up enough with the state of political affairs that has directly contributed to their economic woes, they should have legal recourse to come together and do something about it. That's one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The fact that a Democratic Representative can't speak out against legislation that would erode the very fabric of that principle, without raising partisan paranoia that he's really out to the arm the opposition, so to speak, in order to create a greater perceived need for more stringent gun control, is patently ridiculous and indicative of the sort of brainwashing that's been successfully foisted on the population.

I see things differently, mainly because the most avid gun-owners and staunchest defenders of the 2nd Amendment I've personally been acquainted with throughout my life have all been Democrats.

Don't drink the partisan Kool-aid without checking the glass for unwanted floaties first. The stupid wedge issues were designed by manipulative power-brokers (I'm talking about the real string-pullers here) to keep the masses from uniting against them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Isn't allowing a person, who clearly doesn't have a job and living on assistance, to obtain a gun from their EBT card a bad idea? What is it they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures?" A person out of work and desperate for money, wouldn't one think that this person would use a gun to rob a store? Could this be the democrats way of setting up their argument for stricter gun laws?

Pardon my French, but that's a fresh-from-the-oven crock of shit.

The applicability of Constitutional rights isn't contingent on socioeconomic factors for good reason. When a large enough majority becomes collectively fed up enough with the state of political affairs that has directly contributed to their economic woes, they should have legal recourse to come together and do something about it. That's one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The fact that a Democratic Representative can't speak out against legislation that would erode the very fabric of that principle, without raising partisan paranoia that he's really out to the arm the opposition, so to speak, in order to create a greater perceived need for more stringent gun control, is patently ridiculous and indicative of the sort of brainwashing that's been successfully foisted on the population.

I see things differently, mainly because the most avid gun-owners and staunchest defenders of the 2nd Amendment I've personally been acquainted with throughout my life have all been Democrats.

Don't drink the partisan Kool-aid without checking the glass for unwanted floaties first. The stupid wedge issues were designed by manipulative power-brokers (I'm talking about the real string-pullers here) to keep the masses from uniting against them.

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

 

[Capstone]

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

No, I think it's okay for money allocated to supplement the food-only benefit to be spent on home/family protection devices.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

No, I think it's okay for money allocated to supplement the food-only benefit to be spent on home/family protection devices.

Then your answer is yes.

 

[Capstone]

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

No, I think it's okay for money allocated to supplement the food-only benefit to be spent on home/family protection devices.

Then your answer is yes.

Supplemental money wasn't "designed to feed families"; it was designed to cover the expenses of needs not related to food. That's what makes it supplemental to the food-only benefit.

So, my answer was and remains no.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, I think it's okay for money allocated to supplement the food-only benefit to be spent on home/family protection devices.

Then your answer is yes.

Supplemental money wasn't "designed to feed families"; it was designed to cover the expenses of needs not related to food. That's what makes it supplemental to the food-only benefit.

So, my answer was and remains no.

That's bullshit.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

EBT Cards:
•Replaces paper food stamps and checks
•Safer and more secure than carrying cash or checks
•Faster payment
•Convenient and easy to use

 

[SuMar]

What's next? Using EBT cards to feed their pitbull fighting dogs?

 

[Capstone]

Then your answer is yes.

Supplemental money wasn't "designed to feed families"; it was designed to cover the expenses of needs not related to food. That's what makes it supplemental to the food-only benefit.

So, my answer was and remains no.

That's bullshit.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

EBT Cards:
•Replaces paper food stamps and checks
•Safer and more secure than carrying cash or checks
•Faster payment
•Convenient and easy to use

SNAP and WIC are both food-only benefits. The "Supplemental(s)" in the acronym and descriptions apply to the total incomes of the households of the beneficiaries.

My use of the term was related to cash benefits that can be applied for, granted, and received at the same state/county agencies as the food-only benefits you mentioned, and the cash assistance would be paid out on the same EBT card as the food assistance benefits. That would make it "supplemental" (read: in addition) to the food assistance as well as to the household incomes of the recipients.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Supplemental money wasn't "designed to feed families"; it was designed to cover the expenses of needs not related to food. That's what makes it supplemental to the food-only benefit.

So, my answer was and remains no.

That's bullshit.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

EBT Cards:
•Replaces paper food stamps and checks
•Safer and more secure than carrying cash or checks
•Faster payment
•Convenient and easy to use

SNAP and WIC are both food-only benefits. The "Supplemental(s)" in the acronym and descriptions apply to the total incomes of the households of the beneficiaries.

My use of the term was related to cash benefits that can be applied for, granted, and received at the same state/county agencies as the food-only benefits you mentioned, and the cash assistance would be paid out on the same EBT card as the food assistance benefits. That would make it "supplemental" (read: in addition) to the food assistance as well as to the household incomes of the recipients.

Are you really this retarded?

"Supplemental" is an adjective, the key word or the noun that the adjective is describing is "nutrition".

Now being the idiot you are I don't expect you to understand grammar, but at least try.

No matter how you try to spin it, EBT cards are for food purchases.

Food stamps are given to those in need to supplement the grocery budget and ensure they can have nutritional foods in their diet. Food stamps can be used in grocery stores, dollar stores and some convenience stores. The intent of food stamps is to help those with a low income purchase food. So what exactly can you buy with food stamps?

Educate yourself!

What You Can and Can't Purchase with EBT Benefits


If you were speaking strictly about TANF then you should have said so.

 

[WinterBorn]

Isn't allowing a person, who clearly doesn't have a job and living on assistance, to obtain a gun from their EBT card a bad idea? What is it they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures?" A person out of work and desperate for money, wouldn't one think that this person would use a gun to rob a store? Could this be the democrats way of setting up their argument for stricter gun laws?

Pardon my French, but that's a fresh-from-the-oven crock of shit.

The applicability of Constitutional rights isn't contingent on socioeconomic factors for good reason. When a large enough majority becomes collectively fed up enough with the state of political affairs that has directly contributed to their economic woes, they should have legal recourse to come together and do something about it. That's one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The fact that a Democratic Representative can't speak out against legislation that would erode the very fabric of that principle, without raising partisan paranoia that he's really out to the arm the opposition, so to speak, in order to create a greater perceived need for more stringent gun control, is patently ridiculous and indicative of the sort of brainwashing that's been successfully foisted on the population.

I see things differently, mainly because the most avid gun-owners and staunchest defenders of the 2nd Amendment I've personally been acquainted with throughout my life have all been Democrats.

Don't drink the partisan Kool-aid without checking the glass for unwanted floaties first. The stupid wedge issues were designed by manipulative power-brokers (I'm talking about the real string-pullers here) to keep the masses from uniting against them.

No, you are absolutely right that Constitutional rights are not contingent on socio-economic factors.

I agree that the poor have the same 2nd Amendment rights that everyone else does.

I simply insist that they buy their guns with their own money. I work to earn money and pay taxes. I don't mind that my taxes are used to provide the basic necesities for those unable to provide for themselves.

I do, however, mind when my hard earned tax dollars are expected to pay for something beyond those basic necessities.

 

[Missourian]

[

An AK-47 is $800.00 minimum, do they get that much?

uranidiot. More like $300.

$300.00 really? Where at? I'll like to buy their entire stock at that price.

No kidding.

I think he is confusing SKS for AK-47...and even SKS prices have gone up.

 

[Capstone]

"Supplemental" is an adjective, the key word or the noun that the adjective is describing is "nutrition".

That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to the household incomes of the recipients as well; or don't you realize that the same word can be used in multiple contexts simultaneously? The fact that these food-only benefit programs are intended to supplement nutrition, doesn't mean they aren't intended to supplement income as well. In fact, the work and/or hands-on work training requirements for receiving such benefits, which are in place all across the country, pretty much ensure that they are.

Beyond that, my initial use of the adjective was in description of the noun "money" as it related to a completely different form of assistance ("food-only"), which means your initial objection was a strawman.

The facts remain:

• Cash assistance and food assistance are two entirely separate programs that employ a single EBT card when both are granted.
• Cash assistance is granted on the basis of needs not covered by food assistance.
• My answer to the question on which the current back-and-forth between us was based ...is still no.

You're free to believe as you will in the face of those facts.


Have a nice day.

 

[Missourian]

Isn't allowing a person, who clearly doesn't have a job and living on assistance, to obtain a gun from their EBT card a bad idea? What is it they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures?" A person out of work and desperate for money, wouldn't one think that this person would use a gun to rob a store? Could this be the democrats way of setting up their argument for stricter gun laws?

Pardon my French, but that's a fresh-from-the-oven crock of shit.

The applicability of Constitutional rights isn't contingent on socioeconomic factors for good reason. When a large enough majority becomes collectively fed up enough with the state of political affairs that has directly contributed to their economic woes, they should have legal recourse to come together and do something about it. That's one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The fact that a Democratic Representative can't speak out against legislation that would erode the very fabric of that principle, without raising partisan paranoia that he's really out to the arm the opposition, so to speak, in order to create a greater perceived need for more stringent gun control, is patently ridiculous and indicative of the sort of brainwashing that's been successfully foisted on the population.

I see things differently, mainly because the most avid gun-owners and staunchest defenders of the 2nd Amendment I've personally been acquainted with throughout my life have all been Democrats.

Don't drink the partisan Kool-aid without checking the glass for unwanted floaties first. The stupid wedge issues were designed by manipulative power-brokers (I'm talking about the real string-pullers here) to keep the masses from uniting against them.

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

Guns have been used to feed families a hell of a lot longer than EBT has.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

OK thanks for proving you are stupid.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Pardon my French, but that's a fresh-from-the-oven crock of shit.

The applicability of Constitutional rights isn't contingent on socioeconomic factors for good reason. When a large enough majority becomes collectively fed up enough with the state of political affairs that has directly contributed to their economic woes, they should have legal recourse to come together and do something about it. That's one of the principles on which this country was founded.

The fact that a Democratic Representative can't speak out against legislation that would erode the very fabric of that principle, without raising partisan paranoia that he's really out to the arm the opposition, so to speak, in order to create a greater perceived need for more stringent gun control, is patently ridiculous and indicative of the sort of brainwashing that's been successfully foisted on the population.

I see things differently, mainly because the most avid gun-owners and staunchest defenders of the 2nd Amendment I've personally been acquainted with throughout my life have all been Democrats.

Don't drink the partisan Kool-aid without checking the glass for unwanted floaties first. The stupid wedge issues were designed by manipulative power-brokers (I'm talking about the real string-pullers here) to keep the masses from uniting against them.

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

Guns have been used to feed families a hell of a lot longer than EBT has.

Oh brother. That the best you got? Defending taxpayers money to buy guns as if they're being used to hunt food.

You people will go to any lengths to justify your irrational bullshit.

 

[Missourian]

Do you think it's ok for money designed to feed families being used buy guns?

Guns have been used to feed families a hell of a lot longer than EBT has.

Oh brother. That the best you got? Defending taxpayers money to buy guns as if they're being used to hunt food.

You people will go to any lengths to justify your irrational bullshit.

Maybe. That's what I would do.

I don't know the ins and outs of the EBT program, or why we are giving folks cash instead of just food stamps.

That said...I've known a good many folks that were on food stamps both pre and post EBT cards.

If they needed cash, they would trade old paper food stamps (at a discounted rate) for cash...today, they'll take your list, buy your groceries with their card, and sell it to you for a 30 to 50 percent discount. They don't care about taking the loss...it was free to them.

The point is, we are giving them the stamps & money. After that, it's out of our hands.

If there is a chance that they are buying a gun for hunting (and this is New Hampshire...not NYC) or to protect their families...more power to 'em.

If they aren't...we aren't going to stop them anyway.

Kind of like gun free zones...this preclusion will only deter the honest folks.