Freedom Of Speech And The Right Of Bear Arms

855 WordsNov 10, 20154 Pages
After 9/11, Netanyahu argued against regarding basic liberties such free speech and the right to bear arms as absolutes. In modern western society, we have rights, such as freedom of speech, and in some countries, the right to bear arms. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Netanyahu argues that these rights are not universal to everybody. We need to set limits as to how far these rights can take us and suspend these rights for some people, because not everybody deserves to be granted these rights. At times when we are under threat from terrorism, we need to reduce freedom of speech and the second amendment in order to protect ourselves. There are also people who do not deserve these rights at all, because they will use them in order to further the terrorists’ agenda. Freedom of speech will encourage people to convince others that terrorist acts are acceptable, and will further convince people to join terrorist organizations and participate in terrorist acts. Furthermore, Netanyahu believes that terrorism is something that should not be taken lightly. We must do everything in our power to prevent and fight terrorism, and reducing the levels of rights that we have is one of the measures that we have to take. It is not only what we should do in the country that we live in. Netanyahu believes that we should take a hardline approach to terrorism. It is important for us to go into other countries and fight terrorists through whatever methods are necessary,

More about Freedom Of Speech And The Right Of Bear Arms

Open Document