The Definition of Insane

Spokesman for the NRA

Verse:

 

How many times do we listen to the same tired platitudes?

How many times must we put up with this worn-out attitude?

How many times will we hear absolutely nothing will change?

How many times must we watch everything stay the same?

 

Pre-Chorus:

 

A powerful lobby bests common sense,

and spells disaster for the future tense.

 

Verse:

 

He who shouts loudest drowns out a grieving mother's plea.

A screaming pitchman intimidates you and me--

puts cash above decency--spews callous for the 1,000th time,

and grins into the camera as he says everything's fine.

 

Repeat Pre-Chorus:

 

Chorus:

 

Look around and see The Definition of Insane,

it's etched on the faces of all of those in pain.

On and on it goes, this game for fools.

Insanity on the streets, insanity in our schools.

 

Verse:

 

An unfeeling monster spews garbage, and we just turn away,

Each new one forgotten in less than a week--happens every day.

When will ordinary people stand up and shout, 'enough!'

And stop cowering from a loud and intimidating bluff?

 

Pre-Chorus:

 

We've got to stand up to the shouting minority,

for he doesn't speak for what we believe.

 

Repeat Chorus:

 

End   

Reviews

[jenniwhite1]

I am not sure what your true topic was but the lines: He who shouts loudest drowns out a grieving mother's plea.
A screaming pitchman intimidates you and me--
puts cash above decency--spews callous for the 1,000th time,
and grins into the camera as he says everything's fine.

This reminds of all the politics in the public education system these days. People's voices pushed aside....cash above decency....yep...insanity. #LRWP2016

[Michael Stevens]

Thanks for the comment--I meant it against Wayne La Pierre, spokesman for the NRA--what a soulless pice of work!

[Perplexed]

This is pretty good actually. Very truthful an heart touching. It literally provokes minorities to do something for the world

[Michael Stevens]

Thank you much, Perplexed!

[AngeliqueSJ]

This is a beautiful, heart wrenching piece so full of truths that it hurts. I too am tired of the platitudes and the hand wringing and the "it won't help' whining. We need to look at what has been sane and successful in other nations I.e. Canada and Australia to model what works. But first we must muzzle Wayne La Pierre and his ilk, and get the NRA juggernaut out of Washington's back pocket.

In the mean time, one writer to another, this piece is beautiful.

[Michael Stevens]

Thank you much, and I too am sick of the 'it won't help' excuses--we've got to do what we can to stop it, and we've got to start somewhere--and as to muzzling the rot that spews from La Pierre's face-hole--amen to that!

[Davidgeo]

Gun laws have very little to do with mass shootings. That argument is largely false and overstated. It's the culture of hate, latent racism, and the tacit condoning of it by the far right rhetoric. Coupled with the 24 hour cable news cycle these things radicalize disturbed outcasts into desperate acts of "vengeance".

The far left argument of expanding "big brother" to better watch and track it's populace is a part of that problem. If only for the perception it implies, it has a very large role in radicalizing domestic clownery.

Take away the guns, Timothy McVeigh style attacks will return... on the flip side a gun crazy society is inherently dangerous. There is a middle ground, perhaps require a federal license directly issued by the FBI and attach a huge tax on assault rifles.... like tens of thousands of dollars. Include semi auto assault rifles under the class 3 firearm license umbrella that is currently on the books. Assault rifles will not go away from simple legislation.... that argument is akin to Donald Drumpf's border wall. Build a 40 foot wall you just created a market for 41 foot ladders. Apply the same logic to any legislation that outlaws anything - remember prohibition? How's the war on drugs going?

You want to know what's really crazy? The homicide rate in Chicago outpaces the war in Afghanistan at it's peak. What's even more insane? No one talks about that outside of the south side. it's not sexy news or morally tragic enough for the everyday headline reading citizen.

I like were your heads that though, getting lobbyists out of Washington would go a very long way to freeing politicians from spewing that culture of misinformed bullshit to their constituents.

[Michael Stevens]

Thank, HJ, while all of what you say is true, we need do what we can to quit making it so easy for an unbalanced person to get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. If they only had a single-shot gun, yes, the would still kill people, but it would be a few, as compared to many. Yes, there's bombs, like Mcveigh, but that takes a lot of planning, thereby increasing the likelihood of being stopped before carrying out their plan. Sure, a determined idiot bent on destruction is a very real possibility, but, with access legally to purchase a weapon that only has one purpose, killing as many as you can, as quickly as you can, it's not just likely to happen, it WILL happen. It's insanity, legal assault weapons.

[Davidgeo]

Your logic is sound in practice but not in reality. From either side of the issue, the solutions being put forth are more political talking points than real world solutions. The 2nd amendment was never intended to arm the general population, "a well regulated militia" are four words that pro gun lunatics often forget are in there. Alexander Hamilton clarified what the 2nd amendment meant in the Federalist Papers and it had less to do with arming the citizenry than forming a non-mercenary type part time militia from the citizenry and regulated by the states (the national guard). But the reality is that perception has become reality, there is a lot of social control type legislation debate that has departed from rational observatoin and gun ownership is now within that realm. The hostility toward that notion will not go away. And for the love of all that is holy, do not call assault rifles "weapons of mass destruction". That kind of hyperbole is why perception is beating reality (don't channel GW Bush type rhetoric). What Timothy McVeigh did does not require that much planning, it make take time but making high volume explosives with non-controlled materials is not very hard... (see: the internet). This issue, I believe, is one of an insidious cultural attitude based on exaggeration and hyperbole - not a physical access to objects.

[Michael Stevens]

I agree with you about the 2nd amendment being bastardized to defend anything having to do with fire arms, and assault rifles ARE weapons of mass destruction. Lets call them what they are--they're no good for hunting, they're not used for recreational shooting--their lone purpose is to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. No one, outside of the military, needs one, for any reason. If so tired of people who say they need one to protect their home and property. What, a handgun or a shot gun isn't sufficient for that?

[Davidgeo]

Have you ever served in the military or handled an assault rifle? Have you ever seen what easily constructed homemade explosives can really do? You do realize that most of the gun violence in America is due to illegally obtained weapons... the mass shootings are tragic but that's anecdotal compared to the larger issue. I would be fine with assault rifles being banned, but you miss my point entirely, that is not going to fix anything. Rather it will engender MORE hate and distrust from an already irritated demographic. And the illegal weapons trade is alive and well already, a ban would only strengthen that. It's a cultural issue, there are fundamental flaws to the American lifestyle that incubate extreme hatred, coupled with a feeling of helplessness... this takes the unstable mind into becoming themselves weapons of mass destruction. It's the person, their worldview, mental state, and a general feeling of anomie - not the weapons. Anything can be used to kill, any highly motivated resourceful person can do untold amounts of damage. 9/11 had zero guns involved.... friggin box cutters. You focus on the tools and ignore the root of the problem. The tools for extreme violence are ubiquitous and not limited to assault rifles. It's like prescribing band aids a patient with internal bleeding. If America banned ALL firearms 50 -60 years ago I think that would have worked; but not today.... it's too late for that now. The UK is not the USA.

[Michael Stevens]

No, I didn't miss your point--but do you think our government ought to be aiding and abetting loony-tunes who want to legally buy these weapons? Sure, it probably won't stop most of them, but if it deters even one?

[Davidgeo]

You can't see the forest through the trees. Deter one by creating an entire movement of reinforced hostility? That's bad math. Planes don't stop flying after a single crash. Most gun owners are responsible people --- "--but do you think our government ought to be aiding and abetting loony-tunes who want to legally buy these weapons" -- that's the hyperbole I am talking about. On a serious note on your sentiment of 'loony tunes', the "no fly, no buy" law needs to be enacted yesterday.

[Michael Stevens]

That's a good start--and I'm not lumping responsible gun owners in the 'loony tunes' category--the problem is the few who are not. Why make it easy for them? I'm sorry if it pisses responsible gun owners off, but NO ONE needs access to weapons of war except the armed forces.

[Davidgeo]

Yup.... you completely missed my point. We are now talking in circles. I enjoyed this none the less.

[Michael Stevens]

I'm sorry if I missed your point, but thanks for the debate.

[Davidgeo]

No worries... ultimately we agree on the end point we just disagree on the path to that point. Being able to debate the finer points of volatile social issues civilly and with relative respect is becoming a lost art in our country. It's becoming a bit too polarized of an atmosphere for my taste.

[Michael Stevens]

I couldn't agree more!

[Lyn Anderson]

You are likely preaching to the choir as far as a Canadian is concerned. The idea of an assault rifle legally purchased, and why one would ever need one, except to massacre people, that is, is a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. So if your purpose is for self defense, and you insist people must be able to own these things, and you can disable an off course golf cart with a GPS chip, why not fit these fire arms with GPS disablers, so they could be shut down if brought into public?

[Michael Stevens]

Thanks, K L--and it seems to be people are afraid of the NRA. Until we scream, "enough of this craziness," nothing will change. Until politicians with enough guts to stand up to them come along, it'll never change--it's embarrassing!