No, I do not agree with a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Yes, I agree with a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
This is just one step closer to a complete ban on all firearms.
The 2nd Amendment provides for defense against tyranny. The tyrants of today would arm their shock troops with tanks, Apache helicopters and fully-automatic, large caliber ordinance. We need more than wheel guns and harsh language to form an effective citizens militia.
I do not agree with a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Banning a specific type of firearm or class of firearms is likely unconstitutional. Moreover, I have not seen any substantive arguments that demonstrate good reason to ban these firearms. I have read many statements that people are worried, or scared, or sad about these firearms. But projections of fear are not good reason to ban a tool; they are, however, reasons to seek therapy. Offer objective data why these tools are so dangerous they should not be owned. Then I'll listen (well, read).
this is not banning firearms altogether but it is saving lives so it is good
No one, meaning civilians, needs this type of weapon to "protect" themselves. The average citizen is not trained to handle this much fire power, they are reckless, it invites criminal usage by theft, accidental deaths or domestic violent murders. There are a myriad of guns that are ample for protection and sport that are safer if somebody feels compelled to own a lethal weapon.
I agree because if we have automatic weapons there will just be more shootings and attacks like the Las Vegas one.