In my original post, to which you respond, I specified the dictionary W7NCD.
"subject: one that is placed under authority or control" Disarmed, you subjects have no means with which to resist the tyranny of the state.
"citizen: an inhabitant of a city or town; [i]esp[/i] one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman."
In each case the definition is the first, hence preferred, of the listed alternatives.
The state collects taxes at the point of a gun with our, your's and mine, permissions. I may die a freeman in a disagreeable confrontation with the state. You have no arms (goes beyond mere guns) with which to resist your state. Indeed, it'll likely be a recent immigrant at your doorstep begging, as agent of the state, to be killed.
See my tag line.
dhuffman@awod.com, you cannot possibly resist your state's military and police power. As an individual you have pretty much zero chance of resisting them, no matter what legal firepower you may have. You are restricted by your (U.S.) government (and probably by your wallet) from buying weapons that may guve you a chance of defeating your own government. So by your (not my) definition you are a subject.
As for arms, there's no doubt that the situation in the UK is dire. But there isn't a 100% prohibition on guns in the UK. Some guns are still permitted and a smart person can still be armed (albeit to a much lesser degree than you're used to). If it ever came to the government exercising intolerable tyrrany over the British people, the British Army would be on the side of the British people. I have no doubt at all about that.
what do you mean by "You have no arms (goes beyond mere guns) with which to resist your state. "?
Please understand, I'm not hostile to your position. In fact, I'm very sympathetic to it. I hope your people can make America a beacon to which we can point.