"Human rights" are a fiction, like money. The libertarian idea is that we collectively pretend human rights are real because doing so leads to empirically better outcomes in terms of human happiness, lack of suffering, etc.

So here's a question: has the absolutist interpretation of free speech and gun rights currently applied in the USA led to better outcomes than a more restricted interpretation? Well, let's see. We can compare the USA to other liberal democracies which do not acknowledge a near-absolute right to free speech, and have very strict gun laws -- like Germany, Canada, and New Zealand just to pick three. And if we do we find the USA is a dumpster fire compared to those countries, a place where white supremacism has run amok and schools must have active-shooter drills because of the ease with which nuts can get their hands on firearms.

So yeah, I'd say the more restrictive interpretation of human rights has, empirically, won out.