[lincpimp]

I like the idea that he is interpreting the constitution correctly. I love it when the demos harp on about "sporting arms" and such when they reference the constitution. Back in the day everyone had a gun for "sporting" reasons (they just called it hunting for food), the constitution has the 2nd ammendment there so that the gov't can't take the guns away and then have carte blanche on what they do (just like england did with their subjects). The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice or anything of the sort. Concealed carry licensing is another BS law. Just a way to get money, and info (fingerprints etc.) from the ctizens in a way that the constitution sis not want (look up just what the constitution allows to be asked in the census, and you will see how tight the forefathers want to keep the choker on the gov't).

As far as taxing people who do not have guns, why not just shoot them instead... Just kidding, I do not belive in any tax other than the fair tax... Tax the stuff people buy and leave it a that. The more you spend the more tax you pay, pretty damn simple.

At least this guy is going of the deep end in the right direction, if only to counter the anti kitchen knife crowd and all the other dimwits trying to save the world by banning plastic bags and other inanimate objects...