Everyone know that the Libertarian Party is a fringe party that had no serious role in the election. Please drop the fantasizing. Describing it is as what it is is not an "ad hominem argument". Again, your sneering term "philosophy club" trivializing philosophy only admits the complete lack of understanding of the role philosophy as a serious requirement for political change. Ayn Rand emphatically denounced the liberarians for good reason, long before the Libertarian Party had sunk to the likes of Johnson and Weld. It is not Objectivist.

"-D"? What does that mean?

I want laissez-faire. Real laissez-faire. Not businesses being tyrannized by states' governments rather than the Federal government. I want government to get out of people's lives. Not just the Federal government. Government per se. I want man to be free to do his business, and make his private contracts.

I would do it if in the situation I think. Justification would depend on the intent and ability of the perp. I would err on the side of overestimating the intent and ability of the perp.

In the case of drunk driving, there is no intent to injure me. If it was my road, I would not allow drunk people to drive on my road, pretty much as the government does now, BUT criminal penalties would only apply as a result of actual injury to a victim

You can't justify killing someone in self defense when he is trying to kill you?

“Johnson and Weld were buffoons.” “Yes, there is something wrong with those who seriously supported them . . . “ (I assume I am included in that group.) “It's ‘acceptance’ by the few consists of subjectivists such as those obsessed with drugs and whose ‘acceptance’ does not matter.“ (I assume I am included in that group too.)
I think this pretty much fits the definition of “ad hominem”. And your characterization of the Libertarian Party as “a fringe party that is not seriously debated” is demonstratably false. Here’s a partial list of people and publications that endorsed Johnson and Weld in the 2016 election, according to Wikipedia:
Newspapers: Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, New Hampshire Union Leader, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winston-Salem Journal.
Performers: Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, Melissa Joan Hart, Joe Rogan.
Directors/screenwriters: Heywood Gould, David Lynch.
Scholars: Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Harvard University economics department, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, former Department of Economics chair at Boston University; Michael Munger, professor of political science and economics and former chair of Political Science department at Duke University.
If you’re still willing to write off the LP as a “fringe” party, that’s your privilege, but the facts say otherwise.

I think I would take his gun for sure. If he said he was going to kill me, and I believed him, I would probable kill him first. Not sure I could justify it, but I think that’s what would happen

And that doesn't justify not giving him his gun back? Or the police not giving it back? Or putting him away so he can't use another one to the same thing?

I am ok with self defense if the violence is against me or could escalate to that

Johson and Weld were buffoons. That is not an "ad hominem attack", it's an observation of fact. Yes, there is something wrong with those who seriously supported them, except perhaps for those who concluded the whole thing was a farce and voted for Weld and Johnson so as to not have to write in Mickey Mouse.

There is no "disagreement" within Objectivism over threats from drunks and shooters. It's the kind of endless how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments typical among libertarians.

You started with "Most road owners would not allow", leaving the rest unaccounted for. But the appeal to those who do is irrelevant. There is no "problem of what to do about drunk drivers" -- they are committing crimes and dealt with accordingly, just like shooters, anywhere they do it around other people. That does not "violate anyone's rights" and does not require a "contract' in a convoluted appeal to private roads, which does not "take care of itself" -- it still appeals to criminal law. That excursion is an example of libertarian rationalism that can't grasp the essence that most people have no difficulty with -- except to follow the point of convoluted libertarian rationalism. Drunk driving and shooting at people are crimes.

Ad hominem attacks are not arguments, and the 4,500,000 people who voted for Johnson and Weld were for the most part intelligent people voting their convictions. Do you consider them inferior to those who voted for Hillary or Trump?

Objectivists can and do regularly disagree about what constitutes initiation of force. In this case the issue concerns the nature and extent of reckless endangerment.

If roads are privatized, the owners will require drivers to be sober and insured. Violations will be a breach of contract and, potentially, criminal conduct. While violations will sometimes occur, the "problem" of what to do about drunk drivers will no longer exist, because objective standards and remedies that do not violate anyone's rights will be in place.

How about "self defense"?

I would have to think about this one. I would overpower him in the interest of self—defense. I wouldn’t give him the gun back, but I couldn’t really justify it right now

I voted for trump and he has certainly slowed the March of socialism. That’s why the leftists hate him

"Even most Objectivists"? It flatly contradicts Objectivism. Objectivism is not a form of fringe anarchy.

Actually I don’t drink or do drugs If the roads were privately owned, I think one would have driving privileges revoked by the road owner for dui, but no criminal proceedings unless damage or injury. I would not want to be on a road with someone who was drunk. What I object to is the criminal aspect of current dui law when there is no victim

The Libertarian Party remains a fringe party that is not seriously debated, let alone accepted. It's a joke, as recently illustrated by the two clowns Johnson and Weld chosen as the leaders. It's "acceptance" by the few consists of subjectivists such as those obsessed with drugs and whose "acceptance" does not matter.

No, it is not a "philosophy club" -- it has no basis in philosophy applied to reality at all. The sneering "philosophy club" trivializing philosophy only admits the complete lack of understanding of the role philosophy as a serious requirement for political change.

No, it does not have "Objectivists". It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas.

An example of the lack required understanding and acceptance of Objectivism is in the thinking at the Libertarian Party.

So the police should return the gun to the shooter and let him continue with his behavior until someone is actually harmed? If physical harm is the sole criteria for criminal prosecution, then you could argue that no one has the right to overpower the shooter either. I doubt that even most Objectivists would agree with either position.

You said "Privatize the roads and the problem will take care of itself." No, it doesn't, and no, it is not an excuse to ignore the very real problem of criminal behavior by claiming it "takes care of itself". Yes, you did say that.

I never said it was or did.

A political party is not a philosophy club, and the libertarian movement of 1972 is not the libertarian movement of 2019. The Libertarian Party is no longer considered "fringe", our views are increasingly respected and debated, and that's due in large measure to decades of hard work and dedication to freedom on the part of the LP's activists and candidates. Many of us in the party are Objectivists, and most others, whatever their differences, believe philosophically in individual liberty. Perhaps our willingness to take the fight for liberty into the political arena is why libertarianism, as a movement, has gained more acceptance by the general public than has Objectivism.