“The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) cited in WKA
Do you agree with the following?
The enemy who attacks me unjustly, gives me an undoubted right to repel his violence; and he who takes up arms to oppose me when I demand only my right, becomes himself the real aggressor by his unjust resistance: he is the first author of the violence, and obliges me to employ forcible means in order to secure myself against the wrong which he intends to do me either in my person or my property.
If the forcible means I employ produce such effect as even to take away his life...
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) cited in WKA
Thanks for showing your true ignorance:
analogous: similar in function but not in origin
Thus, thus they do NOT derive from the same source, the same origins, they only function similarly.