Tag Archives: restrictions

Should the government be able to restrict content on the Internet?

We have all seen those famous Hollywood movies. The hero News reporter rushes to the scene and there she uses our favorite cliché, “blah, blah, blah…right to free speech.” That line wasn’t just made up, though; that line was is a legitimate statement of our rights.

Throughout the end of the 20th century and into present day, the internet has enlarged the world – yet, brought everyone closer at the same time. The internet became an extension of our current locations – an extension of our homes. It is a place for us to meet, debate, and discuss with others – a place to share our opinions. In such a place, would it not be completely necessary and unquestionably right to have the right of free speech?

The government, having a say in the way the internet is run, has given itself the liberty of suppressing opinions that do not coincide with their own. This is not right.

Consider this short story as an allegory:

John walked up to the podium. He was to read his dissertation on the opposition of government taxation and the Freedom Convention. He knew it was an unpopular opinion to give, especially considering the office he held. He gripped the podium and began,

“My brothers, today I give you my dissertation on the opposition of government taxation. We –”

John stopped short. He tapped his microphone…nothing. He had been silenced.

In this allegory, John began to give his opinion. When the operators heard what his topic was to be, they silenced him. He was unable to voice his opinion.

This example accurately portrays the way the government acts when they restrict content on the internet. Sure, they own the microphone; but they have offered us the use of it. The internet is an extension of our voices. If we truly have a right to free speech, then we should not be censored. But if not, then it is all a lie.

I once was in the presence of a wise lawyer. I believe he said something to the effect of the following,

“They may take all our rights away…but as long as we have the right to free speech, we can gain them all back.”

Guess what? They are suppressing our right to free speech. If they succeed, they may – under our corrupt legal system – destroy our freedoms. This is why we need the right to free speech.

In conclusion, as long as we have free speech rights, the government cannot, may not, and will not suppress our words. The government is suppressing various freedoms as it is; but even if all other freedoms be taken away, as long as we have free speech rights, we have freedom in our grasp. I call all my readers to action. I call each one of you to fight for your rights, to fight for our freedoms, and to fight for free speech! Show your beliefs by your actions; because without action, there is no proof of belief.

Should Citizens be Given the Right to Own Assault Weaponry? | An Explication of the 2nd Amendment

Lesson 140

Immorality runs rampant throughout 21st century. With our legal system in shambles, thieves, murderers, and those who mean bodily harm attack the good and innocent of our society. People should have the right to protect themselves and their own; yet, certain individuals call for suppression of our rights – including the right to bear arms. To heed this call would infringe on our freedoms and violate the 2nd amendment. Here is what the 2nd amendment says,

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”1

In short, the people have a legal right to own weapons and that right may never be infringed upon.

In this essay, I will give an explication on the 2nd amendment saying whether that document should give citizens the right to own assault weaponry. I will also state why citizens should have the right to own assault weaponry.

The 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own assault weaponry; that is literally what it says. I quoted the 2nd amendment in my introduction. However, if it was not clear enough as it was written, here is a shortened version of the 2nd amendment:

“People have the never ending right to own weapons.”

Honestly, that is literally what is says. I don’t know how you could interpret it any other way.

Citizens should be given the right to own assault weapons because the employment of the principal in the 2nd amendment would minimize crime and the lack of employment of it would lead to a spike in crime. What is that principal?

First of all, as long as people have weapons and ammunition, they can provide food for themselves by means of hunting. If everyone is provided for, then there will be no lack and there will be no reason to steal (except for corrupt human nature).

Second, if everyone is armed, and everyone knows that everyone is armed, then only the weak of mind and bold of heart (corrupt, of course, none the less) would dare to trespass the right of private property.

Just think, who would want to take the potential reward (whether it be momentary pleasure or financial or property gain) when there is a great risk of death involved? Nobody in their right mind.

In conclusion, the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own assault weaponry. If the promise in the 2nd amendment was kept, crime would be minimized and quality of life would increase.


  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment