Yes, I plan to vote for you, but to an extent it's a default vote and I disagree with certain of your declarations of intent. One of those is illustrated by your declaration that modern rifles like the AR-15 are weapons of war and unfit for civilian use. The facts are otherwise even if some terrorist uses one. May I point out that Ammonium Nitrate and the Boing 737 have been used to murder far more people than the two weapons used yesterday in Orlando.
Of those two firearms, one actually was a weapon of war, in the sense that it's identical to the Military M9 pistol, the other one is not military and thus not an assault rifle. It is not used by any military in the world, it just looks like it. Let me illustrate:
This is the M1 Garand. It's an actual semi-automatic military assault rifle, (no longer used) It holds 8 rounds.
This is the AR-15. It's semi-Automatic but not military and not used by any military for assaults or wall decoration for that matter. Like the military M16, It holds 20 rounds minimum but up to 100 with a drum magazine.
The first uses a massively powerful .30 caliber cartridge cartridge, the second does not, but rather the diminutive .223. Past "assault weapons" bans as we've known them have banned the second and allowed the first. I suggest that if you do find the ability to ban weapons for any legitimate purpose other than to placate the phobics, you notice the essential difference between these two weapons is the high capacity magazine on the modern rifle and consider an honest definition of "assault rifle." It would be very difficult to accomplish, but finally more productive to ban or restrict the sales and ownership of such high capacity magazines on all firearms.
Glenn R. Geist