Is the Internet the "assault rifle" of Free Speech?

In my previous post on "Why the 2nd Amendment does not mention muskets" I talk about how vague the Bill of Rights is and why.   After posting it I realized that a similar argument for our access to certain kinds of guns (note: they never talk about stopping the use of such guns or the manufacture of such guns) could be made for our access to the internet.   We have all heard the stories of "cyber-bullying" where some 11 or 12 year-old bullies another student by pretending to be someone the know or care about and in the end the person being bullied commits suicide.  Not that I condone such behavior, but often these stories are followed by endless regulations instituted to "prevent such atrocities from ever happening again".

The question I have for you today is this:
     Could the government make the argument that the Internet is the "assault-rifle of Free Speech" ?  

The arguments are strikingly similar.

Argument #1:  2nd Amendment is only for trained "militias" therefore guns don't belong in everyday citizens hands.  It's okay for military, police and other trained federal agents to have guns but not your average citizen.

Argument #2:  The Founding Fathers never saw the day when one gun could shoot 20 rounds a second and be reloaded in less than 2 seconds.  Clearly such guns should be kept out of everyday citizens hands as they are too dangerous and could fall into the wrong hands.

Let's look at these arguments and apply them to the 1st Amendment and the Internet.

Argument #1:  Freedom of the "press" was clearly meant only for "trained press agents"  and not for "everyday citizens".  Clearly the Internet gives too much power to untrained "press agents" who have no education in how to properly disseminate "truth to the masses" in a way that keeps them from rioting or voting in ways that are not in their basic self interest.

Argument #2:  The Founding Fathers never saw the day when 1 letter/video/web-site could be viewed by millions of people in less than a second.  Clearly they would never have given an individual this immense power to inform the masses as such communications could inflict countless losses (at the voting booth) and cause serious harm to the people (who want such information to remain secret).  Oh the humanity!  This "assault-rifle" must be controlled at all cost!!

I think when you see things in this light, you understand better why protecting the 2nd Amendment is key to protecting all the others..