I follow you so far but I thought the BOR was to protect citizens from the government, not each other.
I think it's very debatable whether a threat of any kind was made. I don't think the presence of a pistol implies a threat. Were the situation to be escalated by the loud youths then there is a clear disparity of force and the use of a sidearm is clearly permissible
If it does then what recourse does an armed individual have in dealing with confrontation less that life threatening?
Does being armed mean that one is legally required to endure impoliteness? A guy can't get a Grand Slam plate at Denny's if he's prepared to defend innocent life?
I choose to be much more deferential to rude people when I am armed because I don't relish an escalation of force over simple impoliteness. I drive a lot more politely when armed. I think most armed citizens are the same way.
Given the circumstances that have been described I don't think he did anything wrong.
I don't know whether or not that's the case, but logistically it's good sense to not let guff get to you if you are packing. Consider, why does the Federal Government strictly, for lifetime, forbid the purchase and ownership of a firearm to a person who has EVER been committed to a mental institution?
Not at all. But does the fact that he was armed allow him to enforce public decorum when he probably wouldn't have done so if he was unarmed? I would have gotten my BLT to go.