Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them.
Interpretation
The quote emphasizes the need for self-reliance and preparation in the face of tyranny.
Patrick Henry's quote reflects a deep concern for the security and autonomy of individuals in the context of government control over arms and military power. He argues that relying solely on a militia, which depends on Congress for weaponry, leaves citizens vulnerable to oppression. The essence of his message is a call to arms for individual preparedness and resistance against potential tyranny, highlighting the importance of self-defense and the serious implications of disarming the populace.
In practice
In a discussion on the Second Amendment during a debate about gun control.
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery.
The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery
I know some say, let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded [invaded in Franklin's print] by ill men; but good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! β but there is no peace.
Giving anyone anything takes courage, since so many presents backfire. A gift conspicuously at odds with your tastes serves only to betray that the benefactor has no earthly clue who you are.
I don't want to be white. I don't want to be straight. I don't want to blend in.
I don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished if we don't take any chances at all.
I don't see why I should bow my head when I could hold it high, or place it in the hands of my enemies when I can defeat them.
Those who rebelled against totalitarian rule and those who simply managed to remain themselves and think freely, were all persecuted. We should not forget any of those who paid for our present freedom in one way or another.
I had to experience how someone beside me suddenly falls over and is dead and the bullet has hit him squarely. I had to experience that quite directly. I wanted it. I'm therefore not a pacifist at all - or am I?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.