Sen. Bill Nelson's assault weapons ban poll needs some DU love.

[trof]

This poll is so our of whack that I am asking each of you to vote, even though Nelson may not be your senator. The gun lobby somehow must have figured out how to stack this poll against the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/

[HockeyMom]

1. I voted Yes, but it didn't work

maybe this is rigged for only NO votes to work? Since I live in Florida, and voted for Nelson, my voice DEFINITELY needs to heard.

Will try again in a little while.

[lamp_shade]

2. Bill... not Ben n/t

[trof]

4. Thanks. Corrected.

[madokie]

3. Needs more than just DU love

Yes (4949 votes)

7.91%

No (57463 votes)

91.88%

No Opinion (131 votes)

0.21%

Total Votes: 62543

[RockaFowler]

5. That poll is out of whack

92% say no - really??

[Chorophyll]

6. Someone or something is skewing this poll.

92% against reinstatement does not seem to reflect reality.

[HockeyMom]

7. Were you able to vote YES?

I tried 4 times and it won't let me vote Yes. Maybe this is how they are skewing it. Nelson is my Senator so I can write to him as a constituent and I have also worked in Florida's public schools. Might be even more effective. I will keep the website and write to him personally.

[Chorophyll]

8. I'm not entirely sure.

I think my yes vote went through. I tried to vote a second time out of curiosity and I got an alert that my vote had already been counted. But who knows?

Might not be a bad idea to let the Senator know that the poll is screwed up.

[ellenfl]

13. i did the same thing. eom

[pinboy3niner]

9. I had to set my pop-up blocker to allow pop-ups from the site

You might try that to see if it helps.

[Lurks Often]

12. That's because these type of polls are a farce,

regardless of topic, they are not scientific, aren't random and subject to mass voting

[Heimer]

10. What are you really voting for?

It seemed like there was a clear concensus among DUers that the old ban did nothing. Why would anyone here vote to reinstate it?

[Recursion]

11. I call that a good sign. It's a pointless law.

Time that we waste regulating how a weapon can look is time we're not doing anything useful.

[petronius]

14. I think that's a good result, as it specifically asks about the 1994-2004 AWB

That, IMO, was not a useful or well-crafted law, and addressed a lot of things that were unrelated to public safety.

I honestly don't think there's any value in talking about "assault weapons", except as a propaganda term that rapidly becomes a distraction. A rifle is a rifle is a rifle, and the only things that really determine their suitability for general crime are caliber, capacity, and how quickly you can replace the magazine. Nothing in the AW discussion makes any sense to me except a capacity restriction (e.g. 10 round magazines), and maybe some limit on detachable magazines (allowing something like the bullet button). It would seem reasonable to exclude small calibers (.22) from the magazine restriction.

Beyond that, 'military styling' is irrelevant in terms of public policy...