It is not "straw man" arguments. CJ and his restaurant companions would be subject to competing reasonableness. It would happen in a court, not in a diner.
Your assertion that CJ has a RIGHT to quiet enjoyment of a meal:
>>CJ merely exercised his right to ask for quiet enjoyment of his meal<<
That is straight up nuts!
If he doesn't like the venue leave. If there is a legal problem in the venue, call the cops, unless you have to intervene before the cops arrive.
There is a basic rule for guns, don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. There should be a carry rule that is similar:
Don't display a gun for show, unless the situation may reasonably require it's use.
Anything anything else and you WILL LOSE every thing you own or will own. It WILL destroy your future.
Ask a Lawyer.
DK
Don't display a gun for show, unless the situation may reasonably require it's use.
Anything anything else and you WILL LOSE every thing you own or will own. It WILL destroy your future.
Ask a Lawyer.
DK
Seems like you are fundamentally against open carry. Now I would have ignored the loud kids unless they became a threat to me. But it is pretty clear they were on the way to becoming a threat, when the gun on his belt stopped them well short of that.
You say there SHOULD be a rule against open carry in these kinds of situations. I HOPE you are aware how impractical that would be.
Everybody modifies their behavior around people who are armed. That includes police, the potentially thuggish, and just us normal people. Most people think it is a change for the better.
Telling Joe to be more discreet or tolerant is fine. Making this an argument against open carry is ridiculous.