General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: New details of Newtown shooting prove assault weapons ban is needed [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)"you don't have to post NRA talking points", or something to that effect (see how efficient "ibid" is?)
Of course, a cold, hard, non-partisan fact is not an NRA talking point; there's a list of semiautomatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines that are specifically exempted in Feinstein's proposal.
But you avoided the truth of that statement by calling it an NRA talking point, even after I posted a link to the text of her proposal (on her Senate website, no less) and even posted the relevant excerpt.
So, no, it was not in lieu of any factual content.
Your continual posting of "you don't have to post NRA talking points" in reply to my factual statement, lifted IN CONTEXT from the originator of the proposal WITH A LINK TO THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE PROPOSAL, is what makes your "statement" to rdharma a smear against me because it is projection.
You chickened out in the Meta thread, unable to disprove the fact of Feinstein's proposal but unable to walk away, so you projected what you did onto me.
And yet you still are shocked, SHOCKED to find that this is cause for a challenge on my part! You can walk away any time, too, you know. I would prefer it after an apology, but that's up to you.