-- I'm saying that my RKBA doesn't necessarily trump his personal property rights -- on HIS property.
How is the carrying of a concealed weapon while on his property "trumping" his property rights? -- Why do you and he see armed citizens as threats to 'property'?
The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. It does not force my neighbor to put up with whatever I feel like doing on his property,
You were invited to be on his property. You are carrying concealed, as usual; - why would he know, -- and why would he object?
even if what I'm doing is protected when I'm on my property or in public. my RKBA is not infringed by my neighbor's wishes, since it's my choice to go on his property or stay off.
Why must you 'choose' to be disarmed when visiting your neighbor? - Why does he object to our right to carry? And why do you agree with his theory that armed citizens are threats to 'property'?
> Why do you and he see armed citizens as threats to 'property'?
I don't. I see armed citizens as citizens exercising our Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA. Not a threat at all, to property or anything else. I'm a strong believer that an armed society is a polite society and I like polite people.
I have a neighbor-friend who is uncomfortable around firearms. It seems you have a problem with my choice to respect his wishes and leave my gun in my car when I enter his property. It's his property, and my gun -- my choice has no effect on anyone else.
> You were invited to be on his property. You are carrying concealed, as usual; - why would he know, -- and why would he object?
He knows me, he knows I carry, and he may ask me if I'm carrying. If I want to visit him, I have the choice to lie or leave my gun in my car. That's my choice, and I would ask you to not take offense at my choice, whichever it is.
> Why does he object to our right to carry?
He does not object to our right to carry, only with carrying on his private property. Well, I respect that, you do not. Okay, seems pretty simple to me, and we (you and I) can "agree to disagree" on which is the better tack, with no harm to either of us.
> And why do you agree with his theory that armed citizens are threats to 'property'?
That's not his theory -- he merely is made uncomfortable in the presence of firearms. Perhaps he was scared by a gun at an early age, maybe his parents were wimpy-ass liberals and taught him guns were scary, I don't honestly know. I have tried to argue him out of his belief, unsuccessfully. Oh well.
It's a simple matter of courtesy, as I see it. I take my hat off in another person's house for essentially the same reason. I'm not out to prove a point or grandstand, I'm only visiting my neighbor.
Anyway, I certainly do NOT agree with his point of view. My point of view is as follows:
Armed citizens are NOT threats to property. Armed citizens are the best ready defense against threats to property, and life and limb as well.
I hope this clears up your understanding of my position.