Equivocal. Certainly the buyer and seller each have rights--there's no denying that. However buyer/seller rights (in the conventional sense of the use of these terms) are not relevant to this discussion.I believe a buyer and seller each have rights.
You're implying that you have the right to do as you please with his property merely because you are a prospective buyer--that doesn't fall under any conventional use of the term "buyer's rights" that I'm aware of.
I AGREE that a seller SHOULD allow a prospective buyer the chance to fully inspect a gun (to include dryfiring if it won't cause damage).
That does NOT mean that you can pick up any gun you're interested in and do whatever you want with it just because you're a prospective buyer. It also doesn't mean that you have the right to feel offended if a seller denies you the chance to hold/dryfire/operate the gun. It's his gun, he can do what he wants. (If he wants to sell it he'd better let people look at it, but that's not a rudeness issue, it's simply a matter of being a good businessman.)
HOW he chooses to inform you may be rude (it wasn't in this case) but simply informing you of how he wants you to treat HIS PROPERTY or preventing you from doing something with HIS PROPERTY is not rude.
I haven't said what I like or don't like. My likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it anyway. This is a matter of common courtesy, it has nothing to do with personal preference.I never said you had to like it.
If something belongs to someone else you ask permission before you mess with it. If they say no you don't mess with it. Simple as that.