"Happiness is a warm gun. Bang bang shoot shoot." So the song goes.

So if one really wants to engage the majority of the populace with one's campaign or point of view, the road that would get them there the fastest would be a mere mention of the second amendment to the constitution of the United States. Everyone has a position on that.

To place a sign with an arrow showing an exit ramp off the common sense road most of us travel on, all one has to do is say that this person or that political philosophy wants to take our guns away. Further implication will show the possibility of future, further infringement of our right by those oppressors wanting to remove our ability to defend ourselves so they can oppress us even more. In order to keep the country free and safe for the average citizen, and to keep the government we despise at bay, we must oppose at all costs any concept that will possibly strip us of our inalienable right to bear any arms we determine necessary to meet that end.

To place a sign off that same common sense road most of us travel on with an arrow showing an exit going the other way, all anyone has to do is say how our existing gun laws are not protecting us and are only allowing those intent on using the power of physical violence to achieve political superiority over those wanting to use intellectual conceptualization as a path to true freedom. And to halt the flow of the blood of innocents from staining our national identity. That the present interpretation of the amendment is flawed and something more relevant to the modern-day is warranted.

During this election season, we will see candidates using one or the other as a plank for their platforms. Indeed, both will paint that plank in the red, white and blue to draw the voters' attention. Yet neither plank, either in further protecting or changing our second amendment, has the support of the actuality of daily life under it. 

At this time, there are more guns in America than there are people. The government taking our guns will never happen. The logistical reality of confiscating everyone's guns is a physical impossibility. A mandatory buyback is a pipedream that would be unable to secure the required funding needed or the level of participation that would make it effective to achieve its purpose.

To say in support of one position or its opposite, that the government using its power to make it happen through its law enforcement capabilities, ranging from local agencies to using our military against the citizenry, is something fantastical and is not a credible basis for a campaign promise on one platform or the other.

The possibility of any action, pro-gun or anti-gun, making its way through our courts sytem to establish any legality to pursue its goal in changing what is already established, is farfetched at best.

Now when I see a candidate espousing the second amendment's support or wanting to change it, I have to take it with a grain of salt. It is simply an emotional hot button issue being pushed to make a lot of noise so that people will notice one's campaign. The interpretation supplied either way does not support the reality. Avoid argument for the sake of argument coming from both sides.

In today's world, it seems we need to focus on issues that are needing our attention and the want to have our voice used to handle what is truly important to our mutual benefit. Rehashing an endless, argumentive subject for political purposes serves only the one bringing it to the forefront. A matter of who's using live ordinance and who's shooting blanks. Who will get things done and who's making noise.

I'm really not looking at the signs by the exit ramps out the windows, I'm busy concentrating on the road ahead of the windshield. For that is where we're going.

Alan Fox, Waxahachie