North Carolina Bill Would Require Background Checks For Services

Obviously this makes Democrats unhappy

(WRAL) County Departments of Social Service would be required to conduct criminal background checks on those applying for federal benefits under a bill that cleared the House Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday.

If someone applying for Food and Nutrition Assistance, what many people call food stamps, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which are cash payments, is found to have an outstanding warrant, social service workers would be required to report them to local law enforcement under House Bill 392.

Dems are upset that someone might actually be implicated and denied when they shouldn’t be, and, golly gee willickers, it might cost to do these checks and”who’s going to pay for that?!” And what of those already approved, will they need checks and possibly have their taxpayer funded services rescinded?

Can you see where I’m going with this vis-a-vis gun control? Not to mention that there is a 2nd Amendment, but no right to social services?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “North Carolina Bill Would Require Background Checks For Services”

  1. john says:

    The 2nd Amendment has always had restrictions on it. Some gun nuts think that the 2nd Amendment precludes ANY restrictions. They believe that crazy people and felons should have the legal right to own and carry ANY “arms” Teach do you personally “walk the walk” and carry openly at all times ?

  2. So, John, would you allow restrictions on abortion? How about a 7 day waiting period? Showing sonogram?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Sorry john, the Second Amendment had not always had restrictions on it. That is a bald faced lie.

    (Once again, what part of “shall not be infringed” escapes your understanding?)

    The fact of the matter is the when the Bill of Rights was adopted, individuals could own and did own cannons without government approval or consent.

    That is not true today.

    Once again you are wrong on the facts and therefore wrong on any conclusions or points.

    (And of course Teach’s comment is dead on as well.)

  4. I will say that john asks a good question about whether I walk the talk. In fact, yes. I own 2 Walthers, a P22 and a P99. Do I open carry? Never tried. Don’t even have holsters. I just go to the range now and then. I could if I wanted. Though, no weapons allowed on company property.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Teach do you personally “walk the walk” and carry openly at all times ?

    You’ve tried this before and it is no more relevant today than when you first posted it.

    You believe in abortions john. Do you “walk the walk” and have abortions?

  6. I plan on asking again and again if he would allow “common sense ” restrictions on abortion on demand. Bet he ignores me.

  7. Gumball_Brains says:

    re: story and not the comments:

    RE: comments and not the story:


  8. john says:

    Golly gee the 2nd Amendment.has always had some restrictions. Gun nutters think that there should be zero restrictions

  9. gumball_brains says:

    GOLLY GEE!?!?!?!
    You are not that illiterate john.

    Even the most simplest of google searches will show you that gun restrictions are only a recent phenomenon.

    The idea behind the inherent right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is that man has the RIGHT to oppose any government that is in opposition to natural rights of man. Or a government that imposes unfair bonds and shackles upon natural freedoms. Or a government that it in opposition to that which it was founded.

    And the only way that man can rule the government is when man is as well armed as the government. Too often in history have we seen when governments move to restrict or remove guns from its peoples, disaster and death follows closely.

    One of the reasons I believe that America has lasted as long as it has, is because the government is afraid of its people. Once that stops, all bets are off.

    John, do you see any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, or on any parts of the First or Second, in the Bill of Rights?

    If it is not in the Constitution, then how can restrictions be legal\moral?

    What you consider restrictions on the First Amendment’s free speech clause have only been laws to protect other’s freedoms and safety when someone else expresses their First right dangerously.

    Laws against murder and the initial laws against the types of guns owned were also designed to protect safety. However, now, gun laws do nothing to protect safety and only infringe upon the right to freely purchase, transfer and possess guns.

    But, john, did you know that you can right now go buy and posses an automatic machine gun? And have it be legal? Thousands of Americans do so today. have you heard of any mass killings from any automatic gun of late?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Golly gee the 2nd Amendment.has always had some restrictions. Gun nutters think that there should be zero restrictions

    You can keep saying this john, but it doesn’t make it any more true.

    The 2nd Amendment is explicit – “shall not be infringed.” Where is any “restriction” in that clause, john?

    Do you really think yhat the founding fathers would have said, “you know, we just won independance from a country who tried to disarm the population, so we should do the same?”

    Clearly you have no grasp of history, the Constitution or freedom.

  11. Golly gee, John, do you support restrictions on abortion?

  12. gumball_brains says:

    John seems to support restrictions on women’s rights, women’s ability to protect themselves from rape and violence, Jews, and personal freedoms.

    Hmmm… john, do you live in Iran? or maybe Egypt? No…. wait.. you’re a member of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas! Am I Right?

Pirate's Cove