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! – but there is no peace.
I am not a courageous person by nature. I have simply discovered that, at certain key moments in this life, you must find courage in yourself, in order to move forward and live. It is like a muscle and it must be exercised, first a little, and then more and more. All the really exciting things possible during the course of a lifetime require a little more courage than we currently have. A deep breath and a leap.
Like, with one arm I know I can surf, but competitive surfing can be really frustrating, and sometimes you don't do as well as you want to. It can be discouraging at times. But whenever I do get frustrated, I just focus on God.
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment.
No heart is so hard as the timid heart.
A heart full of courage and cheerfulness needs a little danger from time to time, or the world gets unbearable.
I was always driven by the idea that if people ever found out about who I was then the stature I created for myself within rugby would have to be as relevant as the fact I was gay. It was always the driving factor to be the strongest, the fastest, the most skilful.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.