Imagine you are going to your local Gamestop to purchase the new grand theft auto game. You walk in and ask for it and they refuse the sale of the game because of a new law.

     Now, why would California try to ban violent video games? They claim it was the state's responsibility to protect children from harmful material. Before you get angry and say that the law is unconstitutional, the supreme court agrees -- it struck down the law as unconstitutional because it would have cut into the First Amendment rights of young people and their parents who believe the games are a harmless pastime.

     This case has raised a lot of interest in who should control the content of games that children play. I strongly believe that it should be the parents' duty to know what their children are playing and if it is appropriate for their child. The law banning violent video games because of their content is similar to banning cursing because a child might hear it. It is the parents' duty to teach their children right from wrong.

     Some studies have said that these games actually encourage young people to go and act out the actions of the game in real life. There have been few cases where children have done what they did in a game. Personally, I grew up playing video games, my friend grew up playing them and so have millions of other children -- but you don't see kids running around car jacking each other with AK-47's.

     I think the people who say that violent video games are harmful just focus on the rare cases of children acting out and not exactly why they acted out. Parents need to act like parents and teach their children right from wrong because the games are not inherently harmful.

     So, California bans violent video games, right or wrong? I say completely wrong.