. “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit” (Ayn Rand).

Libertarianism at its core is about maximizing freedom short of abolishing the federal government. In order to protect freedom, one must have the tools to defend that freedom.
"Gun control" is a paradoxical hodgepodge of shoddy policy aimed at fooling the ignorant but well-intentioned into slowly giving up their right to self-defend. I'm afraid I have a hard time believing this is an Objectivist ideal.

The federal government itself is the greatest threat to liberty, to privacy, to free speech, etc. It has been so for more than 150 years and has become worse in every decade.
Restricting people without criminal records from owning military style weapons will drive the next nail into the coffin of individual liberty.
There is no rational scenario where I trust the federal government to stop the restriction at that point. There is no rational scenario where the federal government would not take control of all military weapons of any militia members that might resist a dictatorship.
Government is the greatest enemy and private ownership of the same weapons that the infantry use is the only thing that restrains the federal government today.
That is the objective context that matters most.

So, no. I do not consent to have my 2nd amendment right abridged and I will never agree.