Really? If that is the way you interpret it, that is cool. It seems a bit narrow in my opinion though. I went back and read that whole scene
again.
I think the context needs to be considered with first
Legolas freely handing over his blade and
bow and quiver while saying
'Keep these well, for they came from the Golden Wood and the Lady of Lothlorien gave them to me.' Hama looked at them in wonder and quickly put them by the wall, saying
'No man will touch them I promise you.'
Then comes the exchange between a genuinely reluctant
Aragorn and a rightfully adamant Hama where tensions rise.
Gandalf tries to instill the fact a king will rule his house. Aragorn agrees but still does not concede his
sword. It's when fighting is mentioned by Hama that
Gimli steps in to say Aragorn won't fight all of the
Rohirrim alone, and Gandalf steps in and makes peace and hands over his sword to Hama. At this point Aragorn removes his belt and sheathed sword and puts it himself by the wall with Legolas's
weapons. It is at this point that Aragorn speaks saying 'Here I set it, but I command you not to touch it, nor to permit any other to lay a hand on it. In this
elvish sheath dwells the Blade that was Broken and has been made again.
Telchar first wrought it in the deeps of time. death shall come to any man who draws
Elendil's sword save Elendil's heir.' Gimli follows suit with his
axe.
I don't see it as a simple
'You touch my sword and I'll kill you.' threat. I see it as Aragorn not wanting to enter
Theoden's house unarmed when they knew that
Grima was behind Theoden 'advising' him, and likely had a suspicion that
Eomer had been 'arrested' on Grima's orders. Was Aragorn prideful and protective of his sword? Yes, but he followed Gandalf's lead and removed it with a heavy warning, seeig that all save Gimli mention that they had Elven weaponry, in Aragorn's case, an elven sheath worthy of holding his sword..