> 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.
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.
Ok, - it is his ~belief~ that armed citizens are threats to his concept of 'property'; - thus he [and millions like him] believe that their property rights give them the power to infringe on our enumerated right to carry; - anywhere on their private property, - home/business/leaseholds/condos, etc.
Oh well. It's a simple matter of courtesy, as I see it.
He does not object to our right to carry, only with carrying on his private property. Well, I respect that, you do not.
I respect the 'private home as a ~castle~ doctrine', but not when it is used to infringe the carrying of arms on all private property.
I see these infringements on carrying arms as a refusal [by millions of our peers] to abide by constitutional principles, not as ~mere~ differences of opinion between polite people.
"-- I hope this clears up your understanding of my position. --"
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.
Seeing we both believe in our right to carry, can't you understand we are both being harmed by those who disagree, and who pass 'laws' or make 'rules' to that effect?