Nice attempt at a consensus. The "understanding" issue rests solely with the author, a person that appears to enjoy (by his own words, in multiple blogs) "mocking" and has a proven track record of being less than truthful. You may recall your credibility issue.

In my original comment I used "you" subjectively, you took it personal (understandably, but one would need better knowledge of a persons beliefs to assume that, and easily cleared up. You chose to "mock"). I suppose if you consider yourself a liberal, that would fuel the fire. If you don't, it should have been easy to see it wasn't directed at you. I could only guess that a liberal might take offense to what I wrote.

I'll have to ask (since they are all grown). I'll be sure to mention your "fun" articles. Perhaps you have another fascinating spreadsheet story.

We could go on as long as you wish on each and every article. I attempt to treat each separately, while you are not content to do that... and that's OK. Totally up to you. I understand some people have grudges and a thin skin to boot, but that's not my problem.

So wait, let's make sure we're clear on your original statement: 

You said this:

"Hard to discern with so much blather in your writing (style?)."

about this:

"Fascinating that the total failure of a policy is used as a justification for the continuation of a policy."

Are you standing by the statement that you found the OP comment to be difficult to understand? 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHhaaHhAHAHAHAHHA

(deep breath)

BWAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

You have to ask if your kids read for fun? 

"Readin'!!! That's LIBRUHL!"

I'm still wondering how he's going to handle that one.  Maybe his speciality in the military was....'retreat'? 

Your hobby is mocking remember....who takes anything you say serious? The man that can't grasp "agenda". LOL

Ha, good one about the "retreat". Tell you want, stop taking your wife to the "pride" parades to scout out for a someone manlier that you (probably anyone there), bring her here and I show her what a military "advance" is all about (Since you feel kids are fair game).

On this I agree with you completely.

How's that read count working for ya? We'll scape the dull off dull Dan, my pleasure.  

You speak of policy then reference a constitutional amendment... do you know the difference between an amendment and a policy moron? Must be  a LIBRUHL thing!!!!

Afraid not.  My wife, by virtue of having married me, appreciates people who like..you know...have an iq somewhere above freezing. You do not. 

Once again, Nitro fails to read the original post.  Chicago's ban on handguns was not an amendment.    He still does not understand a single, simple, declarative sentence and does not know even the basic definitions of nouns being used in the post. 

Very sad.  Very sad indeed.  

"Chicago's ban on handguns was not an amendment." Was it a law Dan? Was it a policy? The indented portion of your article, which I assume is a cut and paste, makes no mention of a policy. Are you calling the 2nd Amendment, or Chicago law, or the Supreme court ruling a policy? Now let's see:

"About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody.

This began two years ago, when the Supreme Court disregarded the plain words of the Second Amendment and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, deciding that the amendment gave individuals in the district, not just militias, the right to bear arms. Proceeding from that flawed logic, the court has now said the amendment applies to all states and cities, rendering Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership unenforceable.

Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally."

Humm, funny no mention of "policy" until your little nonsensical one line at the end (that I referred to as blathering)

"Fascinating that the total failure of a policy is used as a justification for the continuation of a policy"

You might as well substitute "amendment" with oranges and "policy" with apples. Sounds like you have your wife buffaloed into believing you have intelligence (good for you). If you can't comment coherently with what you paste, just put links in your article, then everyone can just read the news without your slant on it.

BTW shouldn't your Blog be Ibepastin? Not that your opinion would be more interesting, even if you could articulate it...just saying.

You're still struggling with that sentence. 

Hilarious. 

Do not confuse them with facts.  They get in the way of of their unreasoned hatred of the 2nd amendment and freedom.

What do you expect from the NYT?

Yeah, enlighten me o wise one, I must have skipped my Dan_l speak class, Blathering 101. No issue with the NYT portion, just yours.

Nice dodge on the questions asked, BTW.