If by "polite" you mean "scared."
In many ways, this concept (quotation-attributed to Robert Heinlein, but adopted by scads of gun-ownership fans) is a new one. In most of human history, arms meant extension of the individual's physical ability to be violent toward others. A club, a dagger, a broadsword, a rapier — what physical attribute they compensated for (aided by the money to own them) varied, but owning one meant enhanced ability to take one's strength and agility and training (more money) to the Nth degree if someone crossed you.
Societies with such things built elaborate structures around them, which usually had two attributes: only the social elite could bear such arms (no swords for peasants), and in case of inter-personal conflict, lethal force was either fully justified (if it was the upper class striking down an uppity / threatening lower class) or only legally channeled into a duel (whether we're talking Medici Florence or Shogunate Kyoto).
I'm not sure either option is what most quoters mean when they talk about "an armed society is a polite society."
The coming of gunpowder changed the equation. Now lethality was not dependent on strength or (to a lesser degree) quickness, but on pointing and firing first. Everyone was equal — except that surprise and numbers could overwhelm righteousness and justice. If the only thing that could stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun, then the only thing that could stop a good guy with a gun was three bad guys with a gun.
Our Founding Fathers didn't open-carry muskets or pistols. To do so was to clearly mean harm to others. Such things were kept in the home, or at the militia armory. Still, their existence continued the tradition of dueling, as performed by Hamilton and Burr.
With the advent of the repeating rifle and the cylinder-based pistol and cartridge ammunition, the equation changed again. Now anyone could carry a firearm and inflict death as fast as one could draw it and point it and pull the trigger. Not surprisingly, the freedom-loving denizens of the Western US quickly put a stop to that. Law enforcement in towns, as soon as it was established, demanded folk entering the town to check their weapons. Outside city limits, where the law didn't reach, and there might be bandits or Indians or catamounts? Sure. Inside of town where there were women and alcohol and respectable people? Drop it there and here's your check ticket.
So we've never actually seen a society where everyone carries a gun, and is authorized to use it in case of — well, let's use the word and call it "impoliteness." Until these days, when "stand your ground" laws allow folk who can plausibly argue that they felt threatened to pull a gun and fire as many shots as they like. Politeness enforced!
Of course, that plausibility still depends on a court to decide, but they've been pretty lenient so far. Usually. Some have, in fact, decided that the person in question ought not to have felt threatened. Surprise! You asked for politeness a bit too vigorously.
Most of these cases have involved a single person who felt suddenly threatened by someone doing something around them — approaching their car, playing loud music and glaring at them, stuff like that. What happens when still more people start open-carrying and, each from their own perspective, starts feeling threatened by the impoliteness of others? Is the fear that someone is about to "stand their ground" sufficient justification to "stand your ground"? Is the answer to let the courts sort it out after the fact — whose shooting was justified, and whose wasn't, and how that ties into which bodies are lying on the ground afterward?
"An armed society is a polite society"? It seems to me that an armed society is a society where the only answer is to shoot first. Which is hardly polite.
Bang Bang Crazy, Part 10
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. – Robert Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon An armed society is a polite society. That’s what somebody said to me today. I…
Just remember to scream HE'S COMIN' RIGHT FOR US! before you pull the trigger and you're all set.
The there is this
I can fully understand why he did it. A drunk was pounding at his door, and US society tells him repeatedly that his defence is in his own hands.
I don’t condone it. He had a door between him and her. He could have phoned police, he needed only shot if the person had entered his home.
But the culture continually tells him that it is ok to live in a Hollywood fantasy.
The supporters of George Zimmerman say that Trayvon Martin was assaulting him. Do they not consider that Martin was standing his ground- if someone with a gun rushed up to me I would assume they were about to attack.
As Jim Wright points out in his post about Ferguson, if the civilians have access to para-military weapons, the police have no option to try and out gun them.
If the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, do the people who trumpet this not consider the criminals will believe the opposite is also true.
@LH – Well noted on all points.