Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seriously? Maybe should call them crack stamps, ya think?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.
yeah, I don't think white trash trailer park welfare trash should be able to use their EBT cards to buy guns either.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
[
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.
"Supplemental" is an adjective, the key word or the noun that the adjective is describing is "nutrition".
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?
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.
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.
