[Bill_Rights]

I was reading a thread on THR entitled "Plato/Socrates/Aristotle quote (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=517243)". In it, a THR member was trying to remember a specific quote he had read on THR somewhere, but he had forgotten exactly who originally said it, exactly what the quote said and, of course, which member and thread on THR repeated the quote. That is pretty typical - I forget such details all the time.

It got me to thinking: It would be good if we actually could give the accurate book or document data on where our quotes could be found. That is to say, if someone didn't believe the quote (either what was said or who said it or when or under what circumstance), then they could go back to the citation of the quote and prove to themselves that, indeed, this was what was said by whom, when and under what circumstance. Or not. At least, the burden of proving all that is removed from our present-day quoter and put on the source he/she cited.

Yeh, I know, not everybody will do it. It is rather scholarly. More to the point, it is a pain in the a$$. Nowadays, there is precious little I can say in favor of scholars and their traditions. But this practice of citing sources exists for multiple good reasons, and I do have to give scholars credit where due for going to the trouble to do citations "religiously", since it is clearly some work.

Here are a couple of (imperfect) examples:The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. -- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446
These are imperfect because you can't go to the library or to the Amazon.com web site and "call up" these books immediately. You need a research librarian to find them for you.

Better would be to give the book's overall author/editor, publisher and year (DoubleDay, 1963), if not the ISBN or other library code. Or if in a magazine or newspaper, the name of the publication, date of publication, the journalists name and the page # where it can be found. And so forth. For a quote from a Shakespeare play, it would be the name of the play, the Act #, the Scene # and the Line #. You get the idea - whatever it would take to find the actual text, in writing, by somebody who is an authority (other than you, which, since we're anonymous on this forum, doesn't carry a lot of weight).

Why bother? Fundamentally, it's because we are good people quoting other good people for a good cause. We have to get all of that right, or maybe we're not good people. Or our cause is not just. Or the people we're quoting are flakes/wrong/stupid/immoral/whatever. An opposing person will use any of those, or just our general laziness/sloppiness, to discredit us. Worse still, to discredit the idea we're trying to get across. Serious, dangerous times are upon us - it is not time to do things half-a$$ed.

[wilkersk]

I think its a great idea to cite your source if you're gonna use someone else's "facts" to support your argument.



"Whats the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?"

-Dr. Who

[Sunray]

Too many quote Wikipedia as a source too. Anybody with Internet access can post there. A great deal of Internet inspired nonsense gets repeated there.
"I heard' is another one.
Mind you, you may be beating your head against a wall. General Hatcher has been accused of being wrong. And he was there.

[Leanwolf]

I would love to know the exact source of the quote used so often as a signature, "People sleep peacefully at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Allegedly this was from the great author, George Orwell. I have read a number of his books and have not run into it.

Anyone???

L.W.

[earlthegoat2]

Anyone???

I think the scholars would tell you it is from an unknown source.

It is attributed to George Orwell.

It was once paraphrased by Winston Churchill ( before or after is was attributed to Orwell, I have no idea)

It is also a paraphrase of a writing of Rudyard Kipling as well who came before Orwell.

Interestingly enough both Kipling and Orwell were born and spent a great deal of their lives in colonial India. Maybe it could be attributed to that geographic area.

[Gungnir]

I think the scholars would tell you it is from an unknown source.

It is attributed to George Orwell.

It was once paraphrased by Winston Churchill ( before or after is was attributed to Orwell, I have no idea)

It is also a paraphrase of a writing of Rudyard Kipling as well who came before Orwell.

Interestingly enough both Kipling and Orwell were born and spent a great deal of their lives in colonial India. Maybe it could be attributed to that geographic area.
Nearest cited quote I can come up with of Orwell is

Pacifist : Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

It's in his essay "Notes on Nationalism" which is an interesting read and as pertinent today as it always has been (since I just re-read it to confirm my suspicions).

[Cosmoline]

I see a lot of quotes around here of questionable origin and not particularly pro gun. It's supportive of the sheep/sheepdog ideology which can very easily be used to support gun control. The Orwell quote appears to have been cobbled together by someone else, as he never penned those words--just expressed the sentiment behind them, though in the context having nothing to do with the quote's use now:

He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip

Anyway, here's a favorite of mine:

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Thomas Jefferson,Letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

The full letter is here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/let31.asp

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk; but divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far.

[Cosmoline]

I think I found the origin of the alleged Yamamoto quote about rifles behind every blade of grass:

All shapes of beauty, grace and strength, all hues we know,
Green blades of grass with rifles behind them, warbling birds, children that gambol and play...

Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, 1904 Saul Maynard & Co.

(joking)

[cbrgator]

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Unless somebody can show me where I missed it, that quote is not found in the Federalist Papers.

[ClayInTX]

Never let a good statement go unplagiarized.
(ClayInTx, 2010)

That has probably been said before but Google couldn’t find an example.

[98C5]

My favorite:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson


Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

[The Lone Haranguer]

I like this one, supposedly by Robert Heinlein.
The meek shall inherit the earth, a six-foot plot above them.

[Bill_Rights]

cbrgator, I may be wrong....
Quote:
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Unless somebody can show me where I missed it, that quote is not found in the Federalist Papers.

Some of you are doing a much better job than I am doing citing sources. And I am a scholar, or sorts, in an obscure field.

Let's see; where did I get this alledged Hamilton quote....? Oh yeh, it was from here: http://catb.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html. This is from the personal web pages of a private individual whom I cannot vouch for. His home page is http://www.catb.org/~esr/, and he has a sub-page about his interest in firearms here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/. There, he gives many links, some of which are really pretty good, as are many of this individual's own writings. The link to his gun quote page is found near the bottom of the page in this sentence:Advocacy and Politics
The founders of the United States (among others) had some pointed things to say about civilian arms. You can read some of my favorite quotes on this topic here.
Searching a little farther, it looks like "esr" copied his Hamilton quote and cite lock-stock-and-barrel from here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html. Unless that is a "spoofed" web address, it is a site maintained by the Economics Dept. at George Mason University, located in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Since I live near there, I am aware the the Econ Dept. at GMU is world reknowned (sp?) and the university itself is fairly well respected by conservatives, Constitutionalists and regular Americans as NOT being an ivory tower bastion of liberal uhhhh :barf:.

Regardless of GMU's overall respectability, this particular page seems to be rather informal. I would not put ultimate "weight" on its scholarship. So, cbrgator, your scholarship may be superior. If you can find a webmaster or prof responsible for that page, you may want to write and politely enquire about their source. NOTE ADDED LATER: A few pages "up" from this one, I see "Copyright © 1999-2008 Walter E. Williams." I know of and respect Prof. Williams as a staunch defender of the Constitution and occaisional guest-host of the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

Separately, I was wondering about the citation itself, "The Federalist Papers at 184-188". I gather the "184-188" are not page numbers, because it does not take five pages, inclusive, to print a ~10-word thought. Are these "184-188" numbers section designators or something?

[ClayInTX]

Bill Rights,

The 184-188 might be line numbers except it’s still a lot of lines for this:
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Perhaps the 184-188 are line numbers for a paragraph and the statement is buried in that paragraph.

[Claude Clay]

From each figuring how little they will survive with before revolting

To each by my whim. CC

[Bill_Rights]

ClayInTx,

Actually, this is a great statement all by itself:Never let a good statement go unplagiarized.
(ClayInTx, 2010)I only advocate famous quotes by famous quoters, properly attributed, because they carry more weight with antis, politicians, the poliburo, newbies, friends and family. But far be it from me to discourage new pithy statements! We are in new and getting-somewhat-desperate times. New sayings are needed, too.

As for the Federalist Papers, I was hoping gator or somebody would enlighten us. Actually, where can I read the Federalist Papers? I gather it is a relatively large body of work, several books maybe...?

[wishin]

"What me worry?" - Alfred E. Newman (while looking down the barrel of his loaded gun, 1958)

[Top_Gunn]

Interestingly enough both Kipling and Orwell were born and spent a great deal of their lives in colonial India. Maybe it could be attributed to that geographic area.
Orwell was indeed born in India, but his mother took him to England when he was very young. His colonial service was in Burma, not India.

[Cosmoline]

Unless somebody can show me where I missed it, that quote is not found in the Federalist Papers.

Found the origin, Federalist 29:

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

The trick to this, BTW, is to remove portions of the paraphrase quote which are clearly anachronistic add-ons. Words that would not have been used by a founder, for example. Then focus in on the key portions of the quote, block quote those in boolean, and see what link comes up with the author's name. This:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

is clearly nothing a founder ever said. "The best we can hope for" smacks of modernity. And now we see that someone in recent times had trouble with "little more can reasonably be aimed at" and replaced it with "the best we can hope for." With that change, the quote became unmoored from its origin and lost in cyberspace. To get back to the root I searched "Alexander Hamilton" and "properly armed", the result came top of the google list.

[Cosmoline]

We also have the famous Franklin quote about wolves and sheep. I think I may have found the source for it:

But our great Security lies, I think, in our growing Strength both in Wealth and Numbers, that creates an increasing Ability of Assisting this Nation in its Wars, which will make us more respectable, our Friendship more valued, and our Enmity feared; thence it will soon be thought proper to treat us, not with Justice only, but with Kindness; and thence we may expect in a few Years a total Change of Measures with regard to us; unless by a Neglect of military Discipline we should lose all our martial Spirit, and our western People become as tame as those in the eastern Dominions of Britain, when we may expect the same Oppressions: For there is much Truth in the Italian Saying, Make yourselves Sheep and the Wolves will eat you. In confidence of this coming Change in our favour, I think our Prudence is mean while to be quiet, only holding up our Rights and Claims on all Occasions, in Resolutions, Memorials, and Remonstrances, but bearing patiently the little present Notice that is taken of them. They will all have their Weight in Time, and that Time is at no great Distance. With the greatest Esteem, I have the Honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient and most humble Servant

B Franklin
Honble Thomas Cushing, Esqr
Endorsed: Dr Franklin Jany 5 1773

Frankly subsequently tweaked the quote himself, vis:

To Humphry Marshall
Reprinted from William Darlington, Memorials of John Bartram and Humphry Marshall... (Philadelphia, 1849), p. 521.
Philadelphia, May 23d. 1775.
Dear Sir:

I received your favour of the 13th inst. I think, with you, that the non-importation and non-exportation, well adhered to, will end the controversy in our favour. But, as Britain has begun to use force, it seems absolutely necessary that we should be prepared to repel force by force, which I think, united, we are well able to do.

It is a true old saying, that make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you: to which I may add another, God helps them that help themselves. With much esteem, I am, sir, Your most obedient humble servant.

The "armed sheep" addition is clearly anachronistic, but the SPIRIT is there in Franklins letters. Feel free to browse yourself:

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp

[LaserSpot]

I like this one because it explains the historical importance of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; this is from the man who wrote the first draft of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -James Madison 1788, first author of the Bill of Rights

From: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm

[cbrgator]

Here is the problem with these quotes. They discuss the importance of the RKBA in the context of a check on the federal government. Even if the most lefty liberals will agree that this was indeed the 2A's original purpose. BUT, that is subject to two modern arguments:

1) The 2A is anachronistic; we no longer need guns to protect ourselves from the Federal government
2) Check on the feds doesn't mean we have the right to carry guns, or conceal guns, etc. If the 2A is protection from the goverment, it doesn't mean we get to carry guns on our hip into Wal-Mart.

Now, I obviously disagree with with those 2 arguments and I can challenge them if they are made to to me, but the quotations in and of themselves allow for the antis to make that argument. Do we have any legitimate quotes about the inherent right to self defense? Putting forth those in conjunction with the government ones would really seal up the holes.

[IronLance]

Try looking up Tench Cox, also an auther in the Federalist and an ardent supporter of the individual right to bear arms.

Here (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/cox.PDF) is a law review written by Stephen Halbrook and David Kopel about Tench Cox. Plenty of references are included.

[cambeul41]

The trick to this, BTW, is to remove portions of the paraphrase quote which are clearly anachronistic add-ons. Words that would not have been used by a founder,

Stop! You are revealing one of my secret plagiarism catching techniques! :)

[pty101]

cbrgator I couldn't find any quotes by the founders (my google skills are lacking) but you could site the Heller case where the right to SCOTUS said that self defense is a part of the 2a

[KodiakBeer]

Bill Rights: These are imperfect because you can't go to the library or to the Amazon.com web site and "call up" these books immediately. You need a research librarian to find them for you.

Actually, the entire Federalist Papers are online in a couple of places and every defender of the Bill of Rights should read them.

[Bill_Rights]

Cosmoline,

This is excellent: The trick to this, BTW, is to remove portions of the paraphrase quote which are clearly anachronistic add-ons. Words that would not have been used by a founder, for example. Then focus in on the key portions of the quote, block quote those in boolean, and see what link comes up with the author's name. This:

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

is clearly nothing a founder ever said. "The best we can hope for" smacks of modernity. And now we see that someone in recent times had trouble with "little more can reasonably be aimed at" and replaced it with "the best we can hope for." With that change, the quote became unmoored from its origin and lost in cyberspace. To get back to the root I searched "Alexander Hamilton" and "properly armed", the result came top of the google list.
Thank you for explaining that! I will use it.

[Bill_Rights]

cbrgator (and pty101),

You bring up an excellent point, and you finish with the correct question:Now, I obviously disagree with with those 2 arguments and I can challenge them if they are made to to me, but the quotations in and of themselves allow for the antis to make that argument. Do we have any legitimate quotes about the inherent right to self defense? Putting forth those in conjunction with the government ones would really seal up the holes. But, unless you are Judeo-Christian-type religious, you are not going to like where the answering and supporting quotes come from. Try Saint Augustine. Try Thomas Aquinas.

Yeh, that is correct. The right of self defense is part of an ancient philosphical system usually called Natural Law. Actually, it goes well back into Judaism, but the Christians later (like ~300 AD) standardized the name Natural Law. And not to say the ancient Hebrews and ancient Christians invented these ideas. They just formalized them and named them. Self defense itself, of course, is basic to life from time immemorial. It has been formalized into various societies at least as long as marriage has. It is simply that Jews and Christians were (probably) the first literate peoples who had a religion that, to some, appeared to say that you should never harm another person, and even maybe you should accept harm rather than do harm and even maybe sacrifice to save others. Cutting out hundreds of years of thinking, writing and debate, Natural Law is a system that reconciles Judeo-Christian by-product values with the requirement to defend yourself and your family (city, neighbor, and more). Likewise, Just War Theory is the same (in this context, "just" means "good", "appropriate", "legal", "fair", etc.). It is not what some of you cynics might think ("Oh, NL and JWT are just ways of religiously justifying conquest and exploitation"), since it starts with the position that the subject Jew or Christian is not afraid to die and meet his Maker. In fact, the bodily survival of the individual Jew or Christian is not even the main point of self defense (since he/she is prepared to die); rather, the main point is what the point of that person's life is/was. I.e., to build God's Kingdom and fulfill his plan.

You caught me up short of relevant quotes here. I'll have to look about to find some. However, I assure you, the origin of the best written thought, especially about how to kill somebody while being (literally) righteous yourself, will come from exactly where I pointed. And I don't mean to sound flippant here, rather I just state the title of Massad Ayoub's book "In the Gravest Extreme" to point out that, in Judeo-Christian tradition, killing is a matter of utmost gravity, even when justified.

[Double Naught Spy]

The trick to this, BTW, is to remove portions of the paraphrase quote which are clearly anachronistic add-ons. Words that would not have been used by a founder, ...

Right, and then so the quote isn't a quote after all, but a modernized paraphrasing of a concept adapted to the circumstances.

Attributed paraphrases are not the same thing as quotes.

[Cosmoline]

Yeah, but there usually is a real quote that was the source of the corrupted false quote. As we see with Franklin, he never said anything about armed sheep per se, but he *did* love to use that "old Italian saying" about wolves and sheep. Like most of the Founders, he had experience with farming and small scale husbandry. Wolves were a real threat.

[cassandrasdaddy]

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” — Herbert Spencer,

[DWFan]

I have seen the quote "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." often attributed to Thomas Jefferson. The problem is that Thomas Jefferson didn't say it. It is actually from an address made before a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974 by President Gerald Ford. The complete quote is "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Ford, in turn, was paraphrasing a comment made repeatedly by Senator Barry Goldwater during his 1964 Presidential campaign: "the government strong enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take it all away." in speeches written by Karl Hess. That may explain why the "Jefferson quote" is a combination of the two. A similar quotation has also been attributed to Davy Crockett during his years in Congress, but that has never been confirmed.

[kopcicle]

"So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. *And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former." *-- Lysander Spooner 1867

[little joe]

I've heard/read this quote over the years and it seems quite apropos for the times. Anyone else here heard or read this:

"When statesmen and warriors are replaced by poets, actors and musicians it is the beginning of the end"

I've searched for this quote and similar variations on Google, Ask, Snopes, etc, but nothing every comes up.

My first thought when hearing this is of the fall of the greatest empires from lack of good leadership. Say the Incans/Myans/Aztecs, Egyptians or Romans. Cleopatra and Nero come to mind.

Thanks Lj

[.378 Wby]

If you're searching for argument in support of RKBA you'd need to look at Heller v. Wash. DC..

Read Scalia's opinion and then Shepardize the citations. (Shepardize is a legal term for searching case law.) When you Shepardize, you need to find the stare decisis -- the case law supporting the decision, and the ratio decidendi -- the legal rationale behind the decision.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has been traditionally hesitant to hear cases involving the Second Amendment (AKA Bill of Rights, Article II). The reason for this hesitation is because SCOTUS is reluctant to provide stare decisis in case law.

Sort of like the chicken and the egg, there can be no development of stare decisis unless SCOTUS hears a case and renders a decision.

And so that makes Heller monumental. For the first time in the history of the US, SCOTUS has said without equivocation that RKBA is an individual right and not a collective right of the state. And from here we work for consolidation to apply the ruling to states and jurisdictions outside of Wash. DC -- which is not a state.

Test case briefs are being filed in Chicago, and I think in some other "gun grabber" states such as New York, California, and Massachusetts.

NRA is working on this litigation. You'd be served to become a member, or upgrade to Life Member.

[Vonrssr]

If you like, take a look at this facebook group devoted to verity.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/308137092589778/

[SwampWolf]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was reading a thread on THR entitled "Plato/Socrates/Aristotle quote". In it, a THR member was trying to remember a specific quote he had read on THR somewhere, but he had forgotten exactly who originally said it, exactly what the quote said and, of course, which member and thread on THR repeated the quote.

I'm not sure if I'm the "guilty" party or not but, as you can see, I have used the supposed quote from Aristotle for many years on many different forums. I am not sure of its authenticity in terms of who the original author is nor where I first saw it but I've always appreciated the import of the "quote". If not Aristotle, some wise sage said it and I like what the quote means no matter who first said it (though I concede it would be nice to verify the origin of the axiom).

[MrDig]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Alternative: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

In his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", Orwell claimed that the statement, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf" was a "grossly obvious" fact. "Notes on Nationalism"
Notes: allegedly said by George Orwell although there is no evidence that Orwell ever wrote or uttered either of these versions of this idea. They do bear some similarity to comments made in an essay that Orwell wrote on Rudyard Kipling, when quoting from one of his poems. Orwell did write, in his essay on Kipling, that the latter's "grasp of function, of who protects whom, is very sound. He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." (1942)
"Yes, making mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep" – Rudyard Kipling (Tommy)

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it." – Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men)

Alternative: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." – Winston Churchill (miscellaneous quotation, no date)

This is one of my favorite quotes but its origins are ambiguous as demonstrated .
Another attributed to Burke is "The only thing necessary for Evil to Triumph is that good men do nothing"
Last but not least
"None enters Valhalla with arrows in their backside, all wounds face forward" unknown

[SpentCasing]

"Dont believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln

[Robert]

Two year old thread. Back into the ground with you...