There certainly are SOME constituents in favor of it. I've heard support for this kind of thing from brick and mortar store owners/employees who feel like they are at an unfair advantage since they not only have the overhead of a physical storefront but also have to charge sales tax. If people had to pay sales tax either way then they may be more likely to buy locally to avoid shipping charges.
Also, a lot of people in local/state governments probably think it's a good idea as they would ostensibly be getting a lot of the proceeds.

I don't understand this at all but I'm guessing it's a hilarious burn.

Some countries have/had laws about which drinks can be caffeinated. I think Canada only started allowing non-cola drinks to be caffeinated a few years ago so Canadian Mtn. Dew was non-caffeinated. Not sure if the reason was the same in Australia or not.

Homer Simpson: Now, what do you have to wash that awful taste out of my mouth?
Khlav Kalesh Guy: Mountain Dew or Crab Juice.
Homer Simpson: Blecch! Ew! Sheesh! I'll take a crab juice.

This just shows that you don't know what "libertarian" means. It's not the same as anarchist. Libertarians believe in being restrained by laws. The difference between libertarianism and more intrusive governmental philosophies is the KIND of laws it prefers. The kind of laws generally supported by libertarians are ones that protect people from coercion and harm.

You might think that it couldn't happen here but all militaries do their best to cultivate obedience in their troops, not compassion. They used the National Guard to illegally confiscate guns from people after hurricane Katrina. Until that happened I would have said that our troops would never agree to do such a thing on our soil. Forcibly entering peoples' homes without a warrant and illegally confiscating their property is already an act of violence. It's not much of a leap to imagine them doing worse given the right circumstances.

When people are under intense stress they tend to become far less accurate in their shooting. 7 shots is a lot if you're at a range shooting at paper but it's not that much if you're scared to death and just trying to stay alive. That goes double if you're also being shot at.

Kind of a silly thing to say. The safety of my family is way more important than any property damage to my home.

You might be surprised to know that most people who own guns don't think of them as the answer to every confrontation, in my experience. In fact, in all of the training I've received has emphasized that bringing a gun into the equation should be the last resort and should only happen if you fear for your life or for the safety of others. Some dude threatening to pummel me wouldn't do it. Some dude trying to rob me wouldn't do it. Even some guy in my house stealing my TV wouldn't make me shoot as long as he didn't look threatening (although I'd certainly keep my gun handy and my family behind me while we wait for the cops). I can't see myself pulling the trigger or even aiming a gun at somebody unless they clearly pose a serious threat.

Luckily for the other party, you wouldn't be armed so there's not much chance of you being able to do anything about it if they were pointing a gun at you.

I guess if a person owns a gun expressly for the purpose of pointing it at people then, yes, at some point one of those people might be inclined to aim a gun back at them and possibly pull the trigger. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "expressly for that purpose". The "purpose" of self-defense guns is to protect the innocent from serious harm. Like the concealed-carry permit holder in my area that drew his gun to stop a guy who was stabbing random people in the parking lot of a grocery store. The gun-owner held him at gun-point until the police arrived. Personally, I sure am glad he had a gun.

er know NOT to eat...

I hope his friends know now to eat frozen foods at his house. "This ice pop has a flavor I can't put my finger on"