3 ms·
> They're still citizens; that kind of talk is emotion-laden hyperbole, and has no place in this kind of discussion forum. You're wrong, because—without hyperb
by wtbob 11y ago
> They're still citizens; that kind of talk is emotion-laden hyperbole, and has no place in this kind of discussion forum.
You're wrong, because—without hyperbole—historically the difference between a citizen and a slave has often been arms-bearing. The ceremony for manumission of a slave in some areas included a gift of a weapon.
- notjaycarney 11y agoDo you literally mean arms bearing, or do you mean the right to arm oneself? There are also other categories than citizen/slave.
- hga 11y agoAh, yes, I'd forgotten that detail. The right/obligation to bear arms in defense of your polity has often been the dividing line between citizen and something less. And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms came up in several places in the Dred Scott decision. Related, I was just reading something about the history of the fall of the Roman Republic, about a threshold where a class of men without significant economic means were allowed to enlist, which lead to them being dependent on their general's largess, and developing allegiance to him instead of the Republic.