I understand that you don't think it is necessary, but I'm curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term "capitalism"? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

I don't understand what you are objecting to in my interperetation, then. You are confirming that my interperetation of your statement is correct.

The 2nd Ammendment doesn't specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one's rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.

I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body -- I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.

Your example is fundamentally flawed. Plutonium on its own does not create the threat of a nuclear bomb -- plutonium is used in the manufacturing of nuclear bombs. The only threat of plutonium would be the levels of radiation that it would produce, as such, one would need to make sure that the plutonium is properly shielded in order to protect the public.

That being said, I do understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do agree with it -- if one looks at things through the perspective of the non-aggression principle, an argument could certainly be made that there exists examples of items whose mere existence is a threat to the safety of others. For example, stockpiling large amounts of fertilizer (e.g. ANFO), improper storage, and handling of dangerous pathogens, nuclear bombs, etc. These examples, by their mere existence, creates a threat to the livelihood those around it, as such, an argument could certainly be made that they should be regulated by law to ensure the safety of the surrounding public; however, in general, I do not see firearms as falling within this category, or, at the very least, it heavily depends on context. I would look at it from the perspective of whether or not the situation at hand constitutes reckless endangerment. For example, say you leave, unattended, a loaded firearm on a public bench. This could be argued to constitute reckless endangerment as the firearm could easily be accidentally discharged by an unassuming passerby -- since an item in the public domain could certainly be expected to be interacted with by a member of the public -- thereby creating a threat to the safety of others -- the individual whom is the owned of that firearm could thus be considered as responsible for endangering others. Another example would be leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a residence with children around. This could be argued as negligence for the safety of the child, and could be legally treated as such. However, if your firearm is in a location that, on its own, creates no immediate threat to the safety of others, and the only way for it to become unsafe if it is taken from that originally safe location by an individual who is not reasonably expected to interact with it -- e.g. theft, and trespass -- why should one be responsible for that outcome?

I would say that, for this example, an argument could be made that having a loaded firearm that is reasonably easily accessible to children could be defined as reckless endangerment, or negligence. I am generally in favor of punishing such behaviours; however, it should be noted that such a punishment is generally not at all black and white, so it should certainly be mostly left up to a jury.

When I said "responsible" I was meaning "held accountable by the law". Of course one should be stroring their firearms in a safe manner.

Im generally on the side of reposting for archival and continuation.

Unless an instance has been built with the intention of archiving information, I don't think that it should be automatically expected that an instance would be in favor of archiving posts from other platforms -- there already exists services that archive internet data, and they are better equipped to do so. An instance should outline in their rules whether or not they support such types of posts.

There is nothing inherently oppressive about saying "Don't tread on me.". Individual liberty does not beget an oppressive structure within the collective. An individual should not stand behind the flag in good conscience if the believe that their liberties trump those of others.

for example to 777 as a temporary solution

Just tried this, and still nothing.

# chmod -R 777 data-directory