The last few years have not been kind to pro-gun Democrats. In fact, you kinda wonder why a gun owner would belong to a political group whose party platform declares that the “right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation” and calls for “reinstating the assault weapons ban.” And if that wasn’t enough to keep any liberty-loving gun-owning American for voting for the party of Andrew Jackson – and it really should be – the post-Newtown background check bill submitted by the formerly NRA A-rated Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin should do the trick. Then again, where there’s life there’s hope . . .
A New Hampshire Democrat lawmaker is speaking out against a bill [Senate Bill 203] that restricts what people can buy with government entitlement funds, saying booze, tobacco, lottery tickets and even guns should be permitted.
The position Timothy Horrigan, (D-Durham), took this week on the Statehouse floor in Concord, stating that barring purchases of firearms with Electronic Benefits Transfer cards, violates the Second Amendment, put him at odds with some gun control groups and in the same camp as some pro-gun groups that often disagree with him.
“It’s not up to me to make that choice for people,” Horrigan told FoxNews.com. “I’m not saying that they should be allowed to use their benefits to buy up an arsenal, but they have a right to purchase guns for hunting or self-defense. If you or I have those rights, then they should as well. It’s not my place to tell them what to do.”
Somebody write down those words for Mr. Horrigan, his fellow Democrats and every politician of every political stripe throughout these United States: “It’s not my place to tell [people] what to do.”
Not so awesome: this is the same Timothy Horrigan who resigned from office in 2010 after death-wishing former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Still, it’s nice to see a Democrat wanting to help people tool-up, even if it is on the taxpayer’s dime.
Still counts..? Well, its something i guess.
Heaps of ad hominems towards the captioned NH congresscritter.
There is NO such thing as a pro-gun Democrat. Non-sequitur.
I think you mean oxymoron. And he’s a state-level pol at that. And the operative words in RF’s post: “on the taxpayer’s dime”. He’s not so much pro-gun as he is pro-unlimited welfare I think.
He’s not so much pro-gun as he is pro-unlimited welfare I think.
Yep that’s it.
I’m pretty sure he would be just dandy with using the taxpayers EBT card for a 9th month partial birth abortion.
He’s pro-welfare, which is a valid position that is completely orthogonal to pro/anti-gun.
@Another Robert, either term works for me.
I’m as right wing as they come, but I will stand up for Democrats who are pro gun, and yes they do exist. Conceal carry would likely not exist in Illinois, but for this guy…
I don’t trust most “Republicans” any more than I trust “Democrats”.
Who signed FOPA into law rather than vetoing it? Exactly.
Minus the Hughes Amendment (passed under dubious circumstances) and the Brady check, FOPA was a good thing for gun owners.
@mrvco, nor should you trust either one until they have proven themselves. But the one big difference right off the bat is, one party has pro-gun control/AWB right their in their party platform and the other does not.
+1 on Brandon Phelps.
As I recall, a Federal Court ORDERED them to enact a concealed carry law. The Dumbocrats had NO CHOICE but to vote for it, or else the result would be open carry all over the State.
There is the occasional pro gun democrat, State Senetor Betsy Johnson from Oregon is often times the deciding vote on firearm issues and is overwhelmingly pro 2nd amendment. To the point of that no Republican will run against her.
@Terry, well well…I guess there is an exception to every rule.
US or state senator?
Not a politician, but Hunter S. Thompson was as pro-gun as they get, and fiercely Democrat. Definitely not to be idolized by the gun community, if only for the mechanism with which he left this mortal coil. His writings also frequently mention some amazingly irresponsible firearms use. It’s almost surprising he only killed someone once.
Except *we* do have the right to put limits on what they do with *our* money. This is a rabid, liberal lunatic and you try to paint him as “pro gun” just because he doesn’t care how *our* money is spent? You’ve out-spun yourself on this one, Robert.
Um…no. They have the same rights as everyone else, no matter where the money came from.
The idea that you get to tell others what to do because they received some infinitesimal portion of their income from your taxes is the same kind of collective-rule nonsense progressives use to justify dictating to everyone else. (Remember Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that”?)
Whether they should be getting that money from the government in the first place (at least without rendering any service in return) is a whole different question. We might agree on that one.
“The idea that you get to tell others what to do because they received some infinitesimal portion of their income from your taxes is the same kind of collective-rule nonsense progressives use to justify dictating to everyone else. (Remember Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that”?)”
Are you also against the idea that they get to tell me what to do with MY money (confiscatory taxes)? Your assertion that the portion of their income that they receive from taxpayers is “infinitesimal” is laughable. If you receive the lion’s-share of your money (and they do) from the government, who took that money from hard-working people without asking, then the government is obligated to make sure that that money is spent as efficiently as possible (they don’t, but they should). Zero junk food, zero alcohol, zero tobacco. Truth be told, there should be no money given, just deliveries of basic food-stuffs and vouchers for rent. It’s like being in debt, or when your parents told you, “As long as I’m paying the bills, you live by my rules.” You want to use someone else’s money, you gotta live by their rules. Life sucks, get a job.
Welfare recipients absolutely have the same rights I do, but I don’t have to pay for their exercising of that right. Will you buy me a gun against your will? If so, give me a holler; I’ll be more than happy to take you up on that.
The infinitesimal portion I referred to was what comes from any individual, not from taxpayers in general. Those infinitesimal portions combined still don’t give us a right to remove the rights of other people to make their own choices.
It seems to make sense that the entity giving the money should be able to put conditions on its use — but when you give someone money as a gift, do you force them to spend it how YOU want? Or is it theirs to do with as they will?
You say, “Truth be told, there should be no money given, just deliveries of basic food-stuffs and vouchers for rent.” I’m with you on that.
Or at least, if money is given, it should be in return for some kind of service: get on the bus and go clean up a city park with other aid recipients, or something like that. Anyone who chafes under the “humiliation” of serving the government and/or the general public for their gov-provided monthly $$ can either proudly starve or work their way into a regular job.
As for buying guns for other people against my will, you could say we’re all already doing that, thanks all the crap our gov’t buys for various ingrates around the world. I actually wouldn’t mind buying a gun for you if you needed one, and if I could — I’m pretty sure you’d use it well and treat it right — but alas, I can’t afford to buy any guns for anyone these days (not even for myself).
They have a right to get off their asses, and nothing else!
Your last paragraph is the only portion of your reply that is worthy of response. If this money were somehow earned, I’d be *less* concerned with how its spent. Just like my actual child, as long as I’m supporting them, I have a say in how they live. Freedom from these constraints is readily attainable should they so choose.
We, as a political body, can certainly decide what they do with the benefits they receive.
The portion of their income, if any, that is free from subsidization is free of such strings.
It’s a myth. 🙂
Really, is this a joke? Sorry I still don’t see where you draw his support for 2A from. If opposing this bill is the litmus test of being pro-2A, than it’s a very poor litmus test indeed. Just because he doesn’t want any buying restrictions on EBT purchases (which I don’t care personally, if you are on direct government subsidies than the the government can impose whatever restrictions it want with those funds). If anything, his opposition to the bill seems more concerned with making sure people stay too comfortable on welfare.
Yeah, not getting all warm and fuzzy over this one. If I am a govt official and I say “here is $200, but you must spend it on groceries” I am in no way violating your second amendment rights.
And at this point I will end my post, rather than going into a long diatribe about how we are actually hurting rather than helping blah blah blah. 🙂
Oh, we shouldn’t put such restrictions on those poor individuals. Let’s try this; you can use the card we gave you anywhere you like. The charges you make on it, however, will only be honored if they are from a grocery store.
I agree. EBT should be for food and food only since it replaced food stamps. What you should be able to buy should also be limited to essentials and not allow things like sugary drinks, alcohol, and junk food.
Is the woman in the back choking herself? And, is this guy related to Philip Seymour Hoffmam?
ebt for guns? Better than booze, cigs, etc. Mixed feelings. Anyway, what about them selling MRAPs and other surplus instead of giving it to local cops and supplying guns and training to the poor?
Pro-gun politicians among the political-fashion obsessed and trendy Dumpocrat politicians have been out for so long that they will someday be in. I foresee a day when pro-gun Dumpocrat candidates from California will wear a six-gun while campaigning.
Allowing people to use money meant for food to buy ammo actually does make a certain kind of sense, at least in rural areas where hunting is a significant source of cheap meat for many families.
My feeling is this:
Less democrats, less republicans, MORE Constitution
This is less “pro gun” and more “pro normalization of the entitlement state”. As for pro gun democrats, they exist. What you won’t find is a progressive statist that is pro gun for anyone but the state/party.
I was just asking myself as I read this, “what kind of issue would a pro-gun democrat be speaking out about?” answer: Being able to buy guns with your welfare. *facepalm*
So were do I sign up for my ammunition ration card?
“this is the same Timothy Horrigan who resigned from office in 2010 after death-wishing former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.”
Obviously this dude is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and his socialist belief in entitlements transcends his socialist belief in gun control. He’s no more pro-2A than the rest of his ilk.
For the record, beggars can’t be choosers. When we give people money that they didn’t earn, we have every right to put conditions on the gift. If they don’t like the conditions, they don’t have to take the money.
^^^ – this! (last paragraph, middle sentence)
Actually, from what I can tell in the full article, he isn’t against putting conditions on EBT funds – he’s against specifically mandating that the money cannot be used to purchase a firearm. This is (unexpectedly) a pretty sound constitutional analysis.
While the state could put restrictions on government money (for example, “this must be used for groceries”), the bill would probably be subject to “strict scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because specifically saying “you must not use this for firearms” implicates a fundamental right. That’s the interesting part – it seems that he is recognizing the right to purchase firearms as a fundamental right.
*Edit: I completely agree that he is not pro-2A, just pointing out the strange contrast between his interpretation of the Second Amendment and his apparent recognition that it is a fundamental right.
At the state level the notion of pro-gun democrats isn’t nearly as novel. In IL there are many downstate democrats that are pro-2A..
Local news referred to him as “typically for greater gun control”. If true hes just gaming this to keep the entitlements going or call out pro-2nd polis in some weak hypocrasy or both.
I don’t have a problem with legally buying guns or ammo with the welfare check. 17.5 trillions in debt & still printing worthless paper. Give me my ‘bama phone & a stack of that Federal reserve paper. BTW there are (supposedly ) some downstate democrats in Illinois who are pro gun( at least pro hunting).
there are (supposedly ) some downstate democrats in Illinois who are pro gun
Until they run for statewide office, when they revert to form.
Sad but true, that’s what cost Glenn Poshard the Gov. race. He started back peddling on guns and he lost.
I think we were introduced to a real pro-gun Dem with that “protective order” biz in , what was it, Minnesota? A Dem apparently managed to water down the MAIG-proposed legislation until it actually looked like something other than naked gun confiscation without any due process. But this guy, I don’t think so. And I’m still looking for a national-office Dem that will stand for the 2A when it really counts.
I agree with the majority of this thread; just because he wants to make ebt valid for gun purchases doesn’t mean he’s not an anti gun statist.
He may believe that gun purchasers should have to get personal permission from the CLEO just to own firearms. He may believe that a ban on handguns is “reasonable”. He may believe that the 2a only applies to “hunting guns”. None of that conflicts with his belief that ebt should be used to pay for guns.
Ijust looked up his record. Voted against NH universal background checks and voted to allow silencers while hunting.
Seems to be sincere about this EBT thing and the 2nd as a civil right.
Thanks for doing some legwork and spotting his record. Maybe he is an outlier Dem on the 2A after all.
This isn’t pro-gun, this is stupidity. I believe in reasonable safety nets but if you want a gun then get a job
Yes, we do exist. I am still a Democrat because that is the only part of the platform that I disagree with, and I can’t stomach the anti-freedom, pro-corporate GOP platform.
There are more of us than most people realize – if you want to push us out of the movement, keep insisting in this being a right vs left issue rather than a right-vs-wrong issue.
Can’t say that strategy has paid too many dividends, though………
Anybody who thinks the national-level Democrats are the party of freedom has an odd definition of freedom. As for national-office Dems and the 2A–did you check out the party platforms that RF helpfully linked to? And again, can you name me a national-office holding Dem who will support the 2A with his/her vote in a tight vote? I’m still waiting for someone to.
@Wassim Absood, then you aren’t for real bro. You are a statist/fascist.
Those are my thoughts. The “moral superiority” of the Democratic party is a joke. I don’t say that as a Republican, but as an independent constitutional conservative.
As opposed to the anti-freedom, pro-government intrusion that is the Democratic party?
Democrats are the party of freedom? Please explain…what you’re smoking.
If you are truly pro-freedom, I can fully understand opting out of the GOP. I haven’t registered GOP in more than a decade. But if you claim to be pro-freedom, joining the DNC makes no sense as long as the “Progressives,” i.e. statists, are driving that bus. Big government already has heavy control over your life, and the Dems always want more. An organization that is in favor or taking away options in education, health care, retirement, transportation, energy usage, where and how you live, how you do business, etc. is pro-freedom in the same way that way Bloomberg is pro-gun.
Just look at the national mottoes of the groups, that should give you a clue.
Dems; “Stuff should be free!”
Reps; “Get a job!”
Anyone can see, then, who is for “freedom”, right? It’s right there in the motto.
So the only time a Dem is in favor of firearms, even in miquetoast “Well, what are ya gonna do?” manner, is when it’s a part of a bloated, unnecessary, unconstitutional, legalized theft, welfare benefits scheme? Got it.
Sounds to me more that he’s just selling out, putting the EBT sleaze ahead of his firearms hate (“build an arsenal!”)
Or maybe I shouldn’t call it a sell-out – That would imply that he has principles in the first place. Principles, that is, beyond just sucking the teat himself, and tricking his district’s constituents into putting him into that position.
Pointdexter probably just threw firearms into the mix in some vain attempt to get freedom lovers to support slavery? (aka, forced labor for welfare recipients) Whatever… It’s not working!
How’s about not “telling me what to do” so far as paying for this poof’s continued existence or that of his politician fellows and welfare constituents?
So, it is okay for a EBT card recipient who is getting free money from us who pay taxes (in my case monthly) to use that money to buy guns. I did not get a choice in this. If I wanted to give some a gun, I would, and I have given away many guns over the years, but when government take my money and the money of others and gives it to folks, more than ever before in history, this bothers me, no matter what they use the money on.
Why wouldn’t it be? As he rightly notes, one valid use of guns is to hunt, and someone who’s living off welfare, given how meager it is in US, could sure use some fresh meat on his table – and reduce the dependency on the government while he’s at it. I’m really surprised that so many people here who are ostensibly conservative are up in arms here – assuming that welfare payouts do exist, isn’t the best way to use them to invest into people being less reliant on them in the future?
So he wished death upon Sarah Palin. I wouldn’t miss her.
There are plenty of us. Sadly, the NRA abandoned us decades ago. Now a Republican who doesn’t even bother to fill out the NRA’s poll gets an “A” rating while a veteran Democratic Congressman who has bucked his Party by opposing anti-gun legislation in the House has been given a “C”.
@A. Nuran, total bull crap that.
We’ll wait while you perform a vigorous search of all of the Democrats who have “opposed” gun control over the years.
You’re shitting me right? That’s not a pro-gun statement, it’s a pro-welfare statement and this (comment moderated) is still a lowlife.
Being from NH, it’s no surprise that idiot is from Durham…it’s the most backwards place in New Hampshire… Yea, I’m 100% for all gun ownership without exception…but I’m AGAINST EBT being used for anything but the bare necessities…now if they want to hand out EBTs to everyone and let me run to the local gun shop, I’ll withdraw my complaint…
Spot on. Any benefit of government should be equally available to all citizens regardless of race, creed, color, religion, gender, or income/net worth. Like an interstate highway, or defense of our shores, enjoyed by everyone, without exception.
When we “means test” something, what that “test” really “means” is that those who pay for the benefits do not have access to them.
It’s hard to win with either party. They are both wrong–just on different issues.
I agree, though if you want freedom one party is clearly a better option, unless one is a single-issue voter on gay marriage or legal (and subsidized) late-term abortion. But more generally, I also would either like to see a viable third party or see the more libertarian elements rise in the GOP.
Gay marriage will happen whether Republicans oppose it or not. Gun rights, on the other hand, can literally save your life. I’m gonna go with gun rights.
(Abortion won’t save your life, either.)
@Accur81, ah, but abortion will kill literally millions of innocent human beings.
None of whom are any of your business.
The guy is NOT a pro-gun Democrat. Horrigan hasn’t met a gun control bill he doesn’t LOVE. He votes against the 2nd Amendment every chance he gets. He only said what he did in order to get votes from the pro-2nd Amendment Reps in the State House.
Do a little research; his comment was sarcasm and was a political ploy to hold up republican legislation. He is far from “pro-gun”.