Nakedness is altogether different. A person naked to the weather, to thorns and rough ground, to unwelcome attention or to any other forced discomfort isn't enjoying the nudity.
The difference is very similar to the contrast between consensual and forced sex. The former is pleasant, the latter is rape and typically traumatic. Other analogies would be volunteering/conscription or going unprotected willingly/by compulsion. A person who must appear at a government office and disarmed to enter is naked before the authority. So it the person who has no privacy of correspondence or financial transactions. "Having nothing to hide" would be nudity, but having no choice about it is pure nakedness.
Stripping victims naked may have had practical purposes (such as the ease of looting unattached clothes and the removal of hidden weapons), but it is also an assertion of total control. In that sense, the psychological importance of detailed airport screening outranks its practical benefits. Stripping a whole people of protective layers, be they clothing or personal arms, leads to feelings of vulnerability and eventually to dependency on the controlling authority for protection against outside threats. It also leads to overwhelming dependence on the benign treatment by the same authority.
In short, anyone who wishes others stripped -- of clothes or privacy or arms -- is merely acting as a rapist by proxy. They might not yet violate others bodily but their purpose and motive is the same: control and psychological subjugation of others. So even if you go unarmed by choice, be sure to reject those who would make your way of life compulsory.
