I have heard it argued, I forget by who (maybe Vox, maybe Nate), that freedom means each person should be able to own whatever weapon they wish or can afford. This is true. If you are not permitted to own a nuke your freedom has been restricted. The obvious problem with this is the events of Omaha. If that pathetic loser had been permitted to own a nuke, his decision to go out in style could have been much more devastating.
There is the problem. On one side, you have tyrannical forms of government, that allow no liberty, and on the other, you have libertarianism, which has no restraints. The problem is with abuse. On one side, you have abuses of the government, because it has too much power, and on the other you have abuses of freedom, the reason we need government in the first place. Men are sinful creatures, give them too much power, or too much freedom, and they will abuse it.
The trick is to find the correct balance. I say lean towards freedom. But you can't go too far. You can't give someone the power to wipe out huge blocks of the population. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work on the individual level. Self destruction is too often becoming the goal.