The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[PowerWizard]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

An armed populace is the ultimate sanction against government that has overstepped its authority and turned towards tyranny.

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

[Beskar]

Not my full personal opinions, but short answers to why/etc which it could be argued.

what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States

Pretty high, look at all the anti-terror legalisation you guys have, including secretly moving citizens to places lime Guantamo Bay to avoid a fair trial.

what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Also, with this, you don't have to spend so much on funding an army as they come already equipped, or if the Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

The population outnumber the marines. Also the fact, Marines will join the population. If America was going to do it, they would use a foreign armed force, which wouldn't be persuaded to join the opposition.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

[HoreTore]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

The only case in which this would be a valid argument, is to protect against a small military coup. Nazism, Fascism and Communism have all had huge popular support and most of the time it's been a people's movement, so an armed populace won't do anything against that, as the fascist/nazi/commie supporters will also have the same guns. The most probable outcome in such a case is a long civil war. And we all know how every government act in times of civil war, don't we?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.

Times change, so do laws.

Indeed.

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Yes, we've never seen an extremist popular movement end up in a ruthless dictatorship... That's never happened.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

On the whole though, I agree, gun ownership is not a good thing is today's society. I remember one of the founding fathers said constitutions have to be renewed to meet the needs of the day, can't remember it though.

[King Henry V]

Bah. Any would-be dictatorship in America worth it's salt wouldn't suddenly declare in from one day to the next the suspension of all democratic rights and liberties. They'd use the goold old salami tactics, slicing away those rights bit by bit. When would you, and by you I mean the average American citizen and not some paranoid extremist who crises "Tyranny!" every time they're stopped by the police, resort to something so drastic as armed rebellion? When a 9 pm curfew is established? When the press becomes censored? When voting rights are slowly shaved away? After all, this could only happen in a time of grave crisis, when there is some tangible threat to the very existence of the United States. Many people would believe these measures to be for the public good and would not have much sympathy for people who declared an armed rebellion from the word go.

This is the twenty-first century. Like it or not, the state has much more power than it did two hundred years ago, and very little, least of all sporadic armed resistance.

[PowerWizard]

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

Extremists and normal civilians are two different kinds of groups, I hope we agree. These are two separate issues, there's no contradiction.

Also the fact, Marines will join the population.

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

[Beskar]

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state. If the government is that unpopular, it would have breached all aspects including the army. People would desert the army and take up arms along side their friends and families.

People in the army aren't idiots. They might be conditioned for obedience but that only goes so far.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

Power corrupts. I think politics today shows you how corrupt politicians are, look at examples such as the MP expenses scandal. Do you think the state doesn't oppress people and trample on our civil liberties? The "anti-terrorist" laws, which all they do is strip away our rights in the guise of protection, how a earlier post highlighted. US government is far from the shining beacon of democracy as it claims to be, how it ties up its own citizens and takes them to Guantamo Bay where they are tortured without rights or a fair trial, or even any trial at all.

[Ser Clegane]

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

[PowerWizard]

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state.

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

Power corrupts.

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

[Beskar]

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

[Ser Clegane]

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

[Fiddling_nero]

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?

The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained.

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

And most patriots would tell the State to go fornicate itself if there is a conflict between the orders of the State and the Constitution, because the Constitution is the source of the structure and legitimacy of the State.
If the State is issuing orders that conflict with the Constitution, then the State is no longer legitimate. (that is also a part of their training)

____

The Second Amendment is there for many reasons.

The most important is that it is the American Litmus Test for Tyrants TM.
Most who would try to touch it have ambitions beyond traditional American political custom.

[HoreTore]

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

It is implied that any wannabe despot would redefine the meaning of "patriotism" to mean supporting the dictator. Anyone who doesn't support said despot would be labeled traitors, and would be fair game for every "patriot".

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

[King Henry V]

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?



There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

[PowerWizard]

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

And I'd just like to hear your opinion, good Sir.

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Don't civil wars happen in the first place, because of the abundance of weapons? I wonder how can you fight a civil war without guns.

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Obviously the first value: loyalty to the state. That assures my point of view.

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

Aha, okay. Just a few points to add to that statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gale

Also, check out these: U.S. Marine Corps - Making a Marine part 1, 2 and 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRccSZgXV4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgk...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPRz...eature=related

[Lemur]

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

Don't bother asking; Sasaki is not actually participating in a thread when he does his "9 million" thing; it's his personal, private joke.

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Besides which, the gun control debate is kind of silly. There are millions (9 million?) firearms in the U.S.A., and they don't expire like milk. Our population is armed, and any talk of disarming them is fantasy-land wishful thinking. Better to talk about how to enforce existing laws and have as few firearms as possible land in the hands of the criminal and the insane.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

[Marshal Murat]

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.

So an armed population can win against a foreign invasion. The statement is entirely predicated on the assumption that our foes share the same moral standards we do. If they have censored news and no problem killing Americans, then we have a serious problem that will result in the total defeat of America no matter what we have.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

If an "armed militia" consists of a couple disaffected homeowners who own hunting rifles, then I would bet on the Marines, Police, and SWAT. Were it a tyrannical government which is generally unpopular then the "homeowners" might eventually gain support to overthrow the government. Especially if we were to enlist the aid of countries who don't like the "current tyrannical government".

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

Impossible. You are seriously suggesting that the Marine Corp is going to go through it's lists, and then move troops around so much to prevent Marine units from being posted in "home-areas" is not only highly impractical but it would also ruin unit cohesion and prevent the Marines from operating effectively in a counter-insurgency. While Marines are some of the best soldiers in the United States, we aren't talking about heroes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have friend-on-friend or civilian casualties would we?

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Agreed.

Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Greatest support for gun-rights.

[rory_20_uk]

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

Ok...

Radar
A fleet
An airforce
An army...

Here's the timeline:

Cuba sets off in a combination of rafts, rusting ex-soviet ships and cargo containers. They are detected before leaving port.
The ones that don't sink slowly make their way towards Florida; the covering aeroplanes run out of fuel and have to turn back as ethanol has a shorter range.
When the coastguard have stopped gut laughing they inform the Navy and set off to rescue those drowning due to the capsizing of most of the rafts and ships.
The minute anything sets foot in USA waters there are already ships en-route. The Navy and coastguard, who both have more sophisticated ships and weaponry argue whether this is an invasion or whether they've just got lost and who has juristiction.
Contact is finally made - the difficulties being the lack of working radios on the Cuban ships.
Those that decide to try small arms verses the USA ships get sunk within seconds. The rest declare asylum.

The point being - they'll NEVER reach land in an organised way

What's next? Mexicans invading? The Russians finding the remains of the Pacific fleet and invading? The Chinese sneakily building a blue-water fleet, making it accross the whole pacific without detection and storming the beaches?

When you're a weak power with powerful Imperial neighbours with a vast, hostile hinterland this argument is valid. But as the world's largest power? Please...

[Yoyoma1910]

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

[Marshal Murat]

Don't worry rory, Harold Coyle has you covered

[HoreTore]

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

[HoreTore]

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.
- Secondly, you think Joe Iraqi had his house stuffed with c-4, RPG's and so on before the invasion? He didn't, nor did he need to, since an invasion creates a power vacuum for looting, as well as allies(Iran, Syria, etc etc) willing to give you a bunch of stuff for free. Also, there seems to be an unending supply of black market ex-soviet weapons...

[Crazed Rabbit]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.
Also, you cannot buy an AK-47 unless you have tens of thousands of dollars and the time to fill out a lot of paperwork.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Armed citizenry resisting was the case a couple times in the 1800s. Right now it is unlikely. Times will change however, and the future may be different.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Police or SWAT? Sure - they can be resisted easily. SWAT teams rely on surprise, they're not soldiers. As for Marines, perhaps you ought to take a look at how many there are (not that many) and how big the US is (huge) and how many people there are (a great deal). Marines can't be everywhere. Look at the trouble they had in Iraq, a country of far fewer people. The military cannot control the population of the US if even a fraction rebels.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Because I want somebody to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Why should I care what they're doing so long as they don't actually attack someone?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

It is read in that context- where every male was a member of the militia and well regulated meant well organized and armed. And no, laws do not change over time. They mean the same thing until they are rewritten or repealed.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anti-gun folk always say they have the 'common sense' position because they don't really have any facts. If this country rebels, people aren't going to march out and find Marines to fight toe-to-toe with. Maybe you ought to stop thinking about how an idiot would stupidly fight.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

I'm afraid it's not. There's some dems and liberals for whom it is the main issue. They aren't getting anywhere right now, but that doesn't mean they won't try again. They must be kept under close watch, and the struggle for gun rights must continue.

CR

[Strike For The South]

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

Main Entry: ig·no·rance Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

[drone]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

You have no idea what he is referring to here, do you?

[Yoyoma1910]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

Oh, and what if the Federal government takes the majority of your state military and their infrastructure, which normally deals with such a situation, and plants them in a place like, I don't know, Iraq, where they wouldn't be able to respond to such a situation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely?

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

Gee, you mean the spots where we were going to be welcomed as liberators? The US wasn't deterred because the government didn't even think about that.

CR

[PowerWizard]

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

Main Entry: ig·no·rance Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Sorry, but...

[Beskar]

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249752]Sorry, but...



Broken image link?