No, he's not. He's pointing out the fallacy of the argument.
By making an inappropriate comparison.
Soliders and police officers go out to find bad guys and engage them at any time and place where they encounter them. Force is sometimes necessary and the bad guys sometimes use force in return.
Store clerks put things on shelves and sell lottery tickets inside a nice, safe store, with instructions to give any robber anything that the robber demands. There is no comparison between a store clerk and a police officer and/or a soldier.
But again, he already owned up to the fact that regardless of the job or any real "need", he just wants to own the stuff, and the fact that needs to be saving money because he's got a baby on the way is secondary.
That pretty much concludes the issue, doesn't it?