New amendment to take the others away for a certain time of time for the good of the people

Your first statement is not actually true. You invoked, "The City", in your first example, "A State" in your second, and "The United States President or someone of that power" in your third. Phrased as it is, I would interpret that to mean those institutions/people specifically held that power, and nowhere in your previous argument was it clarified that they were merely consenting to the vote of the people. Regardless, your intentions have now been clarified so we can assume from here out that the suggested amendment would operate on a popular vote by all who are involved. However, I would say that doesn't solve the problem. Indeed, not having the specific ability vested in a single authority would prevent the convenient rise of a dictator, however I don't think it would be able to prevent the rise of totalitarianism, were such an instance arise. What you're suggesting, the people of a region voting in majority to create and/or alter laws they deem necessary is essentially the foundational principle of democracy. If you're people aren't doing that, then something's gone wrong. I fully agree that it is within the hands of the people affected to create measures to protect themselves, and I think many do, which in the case of your example involving an armed riot, is generally why a good portion of democracies practice gun control. Not only do I not consider you incorrect in this thought, I think there's a substantial body of evidence to support this. Issues of speech, however, are a different matter. While it seems entirely reasonable to prohibit armaments at a protest in order to protect those involved, prohibiting the right to protest at all is far more unreasonable. A "report button" for the freedom of speech and of the press is different in the case of a country than it is for a website. A website is really more of a private property. It is made by certain individuals for their own needs or the needs of their consumer and/or user base. If you as a critic are on someone's forum and you say something threatening, or demeaning, or otherwise disagreeable to the people who run/use it, it's well within their right to show you the door. It would be similar to having been invited to a party at someone's house, at which point you proceed to say something threatening, it's well within the right of the owner of the house, or even the other members of the party, to ask you to leave. A country, however, is not someone else's house, a country is a shared space. Asking, or forcing, someone to stop talking because you and others like you disagree with what they're saying would be more akin to a home where both you and the person in question are occupants, and in which you evict the individual from their own home. This country belongs just as much to the Muslim as it does to the Christian, just as much to the armed as it does to the pacifist, and just as much to the journalist as it does to the president whom they despise, and I don't think anybody truly has the right to say otherwise. It may be threatening, it may be ridiculous, it may be bigoted, but the reason we created these rights in the first place is so nobody has to feel forced to think or behave in the way that the majority wants them to. I would also like to point out that even though the power would be vested in the people, it can still be abused. Let's say, for example, a region exists in which a large majority, (or unequally powerful minority) finds a certain subset of people to be undesirable, or threatening, or "all terrorists". This amendment would provide these people the ability to persecute and suppress these individuals, without them having ever actually done anything to provocate it. Do keep in mind that Hitler wasn't the only Nazi in Germany at the time.