This is why I wrote a long and comprehensive post, but I disagree with you here.

See this is the point where a line has to be drawn, I view the State as a tumor of violence, and it won't be defeated by more violence.

So people owning rocket launchers and tanks will only have 1 purpose, to facilitate more violence. And that will shift the balance, perhaps a centralized state will go away, but you will get many warlords, smaller , but just as violence factions.

Now call me crazy, but even the current status quo is better than this. I measure the size of the State in the amount of total violence or threat of violence that is inflicted upon society, and in a warzone that is pretty big.

So you didn't got rid of the State, you just created a permanent warzone.

I mean when somebody flips you off on the highway, you just take out your rocket launcher and smoke him out. I think this is just too funny to be even considered feasible.

So I am sorry, this is why I don't believe in a totally armed citizenry. Relaxed pistol rights sure. But nothing more in my opinion. Otherwise the amount of violence will increase. And we don't want that.

The State can also restrict violence not just impose it, and in this particular example it is useful to have a ban on automatic weapons.

But this has to be symmetric, so the militarization of the police also has to be reversed.