Newtown Shootings

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby manas » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:37 am

I don't own a gun (I live in a suburban area, so I don't feel I need one), but a thought occurred to me. As Buddhists, we rightly abstain from violence to other living beings, not just because it is a rule to be followed, but out of genuine compassion for other living beings, from insects right up to human beings. But there might be situations where some controlled violence might be necessary, in the defence of others. For example, if someone was about to kill my child, I would do whatever it took to stop them - using lethal force, if that was what it took to save my child's life. So I do think that gun ownership, in certain situations, might be understandable (please note, I didn't say 'good',I said 'understandable'). If I lived in a far-flung rural area on a farm, for example, far from local law enforcement, and had kids, I would also need a suitable weapon to protect them, in case of a home invasion or whatever. But obviously I would do my utmost to try to inflict the least possible harm on an attacker. But when it comes down to it, I challenge any parent to say they would not use lethal force if that was the only way to save the life of their child, for example. This is not a black-and-white issue. Guns are horrible things, but sometimes, in this imperfect realm, they do have a place. Sadly.
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:16 am

I keep hearing about these tragic event, but one thing dumbfounds me. That is the reasoning people still have for gun ownership no matter what in US and why these things happen. almost like it isn't a problem in the law itself but on the wider populaces behaviour.


it is sad if the unsubstantiated "facts" outweigh the proof. although the video omits the fact that when a similare event happened in briton the gun control measures were strengthened.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Reductor » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:24 am

Sambojjhanga wrote:How can any Buddhist possibly argue for the existence, never mind the right to own any device which is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to violate the most important precept in Buddhism, the one to which if it's violated, all else is meaningless, that being the 1st. precept?

Does it strike anyone else as odd except me that the 1st. precept says: I undertake the training to abstain from killing...and yet that is PRECISELY what a gun is for? It exists for NO OTHER PURPOSE despite the special variants created to perfect the ability at the primary purpose.

I think we're dealing with some serious issues regarding delusion here, folks.


First, I'm rather annoyed at this righteous tone about Buddhists and guns, as if a True Buddhist should automatically toe this line or that, or hand in their meditation pillow. I've long ago ceased to kill living beings, yet I don't abhor firearms. If I were more like my father, I too would own a firearm, so that I could enjoy the endless tinkering he enjoys as he pursues the perfect grouping at 200 yards.

There is nothing in a gun that mandates its owner to kill; not even a mouse need fear a gun toting person who lacks ill-will or intent to harm. Regardless what the manufacturer or inventor may have intended, as an owner I would not be obliged to share in that intent nor to act it out.

But perhaps it is hard to see how anything short of firearm bans can solve the homicide problems in the states, unless you consider places where there are many firearm present yet the gun crime is very low. Like Canada. In Canada only %3 of all violent crime is committed with a firearm, whereas the US sees %66 of homicides being committed with a firearm. When this low rate is considered in conjunction with the high rate of gun ownership in Canada, I'd incline to credit that much lower rate to our stringent gun control laws.

Maybe the answer doesn't lie in letting total freedom reign, on the one hand, or in driving the guns out of society on the other hand? Something in the middle, perhaps?

Or everyone can keep on holding fast to extremes.
Michael

The thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1
To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

User avatar
Reductor
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Sambojjhanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:20 pm

Reductor wrote:
Sambojjhanga wrote:How can any Buddhist possibly argue for the existence, never mind the right to own any device which is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to violate the most important precept in Buddhism, the one to which if it's violated, all else is meaningless, that being the 1st. precept?

Does it strike anyone else as odd except me that the 1st. precept says: I undertake the training to abstain from killing...and yet that is PRECISELY what a gun is for? It exists for NO OTHER PURPOSE despite the special variants created to perfect the ability at the primary purpose.

I think we're dealing with some serious issues regarding delusion here, folks.


First, I'm rather annoyed at this righteous tone about Buddhists and guns, as if a True Buddhist should automatically toe this line or that, or hand in their meditation pillow. I've long ago ceased to kill living beings, yet I don't abhor firearms. If I were more like my father, I too would own a firearm, so that I could enjoy the endless tinkering he enjoys as he pursues the perfect grouping at 200 yards.


I said how can any Buddhist ARGUE FOR....I never asked for you, or anyone else, to "turn in their meditation pillow"! I understand hyperbole and all, but let's be careful about arguing to what is actually being said and not create a strawman which is easier to tear down, OK?

No one, least of all I, is arguing for who should and should not be a Buddhist nor am I even arguing for more gun laws. I'm simply stating something I find interesting.

As for your father and target shooting, in all honesty, they make some really awesome airguns specifically designed for target shooting and are quite "tinkerable". If your father is truly interested in shooting tight groupings for that reason (and not simply for practice) then they could ban firearms tomorrow and your father would be good to go. Just get a good Beeman or something along those lines. Even if firearms are restricted, they are going to go after the high capacity types. Single shot target shooting type guns are the least of anyone's concern.

Reductor wrote:There is nothing in a gun that mandates its owner to kill; not even a mouse need fear a gun toting person who lacks ill-will or intent to harm. Regardless what the manufacturer or inventor may have intended, as an owner I would not be obliged to share in that intent nor to act it out.


I disagree. A gun is still dangerous despite the owner's intentions. First of all, there are the all-too-prevalent accidents. We all know the countless stories of "great gun owners" who either shot themselves, or someone else, with the infamous "empty gun". You can certainly kill an animal or a human without holding any ill-will. All it takes is delusion. Also, guns can be stolen, lost, etc. Again, many people have been killed with other people's guns.

Reductor wrote:But perhaps it is hard to see how anything short of firearm bans can solve the homicide problems in the states, unless you consider places where there are many firearm present yet the gun crime is very low. Like Canada. In Canada only %3 of all violent crime is committed with a firearm, whereas the US sees %66 of homicides being committed with a firearm. When this low rate is considered in conjunction with the high rate of gun ownership in Canada, I'd incline to credit that much lower rate to our stringent gun control laws.


There are a number of reasons why Canada is different. First, as you state, Canada does have much more stringent gun laws than the US. Canada is also a much less violent society and finally, Canada has MUCH less population density.

However, I think the primary reason are high-capacity magazines. It's just a lot harder to kill a bunch of people easily if you DO NOT have access to high capacity magazines.

[/quote]

Reductor wrote:Maybe the answer doesn't lie in letting total freedom reign, on the one hand, or in driving the guns out of society on the other hand? Something in the middle, perhaps?

Or everyone can keep on holding fast to extremes.


I agree with you here. I was speaking specifically of Buddhists and why a Buddhist might even consider a gun. But as society as a whole, there is no way an overall gun ban would work, but it's very hard to justify, other than selfish narcisism, the reason anyone (outside of military and LE) would need a high capacity magazine. Your father can talk to you about the accuracy of groupings in controlled shots vs. double or triple taps, I'm quite sure. Unless you're planning on defending your house against an invasion (and many in the so-called liberty/prep movement believe this IS what will happen...right before Jesus Raptures them), you DO NOT need a 30 round mag to protect your home.

Metta

:anjali:
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Sambojjhanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:00 pm

poto wrote:
I find the notion that merely having a gun or supporting gun rights makes one delusional to be rather insulting. Implying that we must make ourselves defenseless in order to be a lay Buddhist disturbs me. I'm glad that you're not deciding who can and can not be Buddhist, because you'd probably toss me right out.


Everyone of us who is incarnate and not enlightened suffers from delusion, so please don't take that personally. I'm not implying that you must do anything. What I am implying is that I find it ironic that Buddhists can in all seriousness consider guns anything other than what they truly are.

You say I'm implying that we must make ourselves defenseless. I'm not saying that at all! Quite the opposite in fact. What I am saying is that you are deluded if you truly believe that increasing your ability to violate the 1st. Precept in any way makes you safer. I honestly am constantly amazed at how "safe" people think they are. You DO realize that there is a 100% chance that you and everyone you know WILL die, right? You also know that with very few exceptions, NO ONE knows the time, place or method that this will occur, right? So what makes you think that by increasing your ability to kill others more easily, quickly and with less effort can in any way make you or anyone else safer? This is the part I don't get!

Please consider these words from The Buddha:

""There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans..."


Also, why when we are simply discussing something do you come to the (extremely erroneous) conclusion that I want to "toss you out"? I happen to believe that your delusional thinking on this is leading you AWAY from Nibbana, not toward it. I say this because your thoughts and actions are directly counter to what the Buddha teaches us. I cannot "toss you out", only YOU can do that to YOURSELF.

poto wrote:Many times throughout my life I've been responsible for the safeguarding of countless other lives. After my time in the military I took work as a security guard. One of those jobs I had was as a guard at a bank. That was probably the most stressful job I ever had, but it was also rewarding because I felt like I was actually making a difference there. My intention on that job and many others was to protect, not to kill or bring harm. That intention is something that has spilled over to my home life as well.


There is not a doubt in my mind that your heart is in the right place and that you believe that you are acting in a good way. Many fine young men and women have joined the military hoping to make a difference and help people. Same with the police, etc., etc. While this is a noble thing, it has been my finding that often the best way to challenge violence isn't with more violence but with less. Obviously, this isn't always true immediately, but I think that if one takes a look at US military action since, say, WWII, one is struck by how much hatred and devastation this has spread vs. peace and help.

Why is this? I attribute it to greed, hatred and, yes, delusion.

poto wrote:I don't know if some of you have a hard time understanding that intention, or if you're just emotional and stuck on anti-gun thinking. For me, I don't feel that having firearms makes me somehow unable to follow the Buddha's teachings. If I was to ordain it would be a different matter, but as a mere householder, I feel I have a duty to provide a safe environment.


Here is where I think the crux of the issue lies. You see, poto, I don't happen to believe that having firearms DOES make anyone safer. Please re-read what the Buddha has to say regarding the 1st. Precept. The Buddha claims that by NOT violating the 1st. Precept, we are helping to provide that safe environment that you so wish to provide. Note that he doesn't say that threatening the violation of the 1st. Precept, either overtly or covertly, helps to provide that safety. I absolutely understand your intention...and your intention I believe is good and wholesome. The problem is, alas, your DELUSION. The delusion of this regarding this matter is the heart of our societies problems, I believe.

Put simply, you don't put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it...you don't even do it be walking near that fire with a can of gasoline ;)

Metta

:anjali:
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Justsit » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:16 pm

So, Sambojjhanga, I'm still pondering all this...in your view, then, is self-defense justified for Buddhist adherents?
Justsit
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:44 pm

Justsit wrote:So, Sambojjhanga, I'm still pondering all this...in your view, then, is self-defense justified for Buddhist adherents?

The first precept states that Buddhists should not destroy living beings. Any hypothetical "kill or be killed" situations that we may or may not formulate for the sake of argument must be secondary to that fact.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Sambojjhanga » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:24 pm

Justsit wrote:So, Sambojjhanga, I'm still pondering all this...in your view, then, is self-defense justified for Buddhist adherents?


Certainly. Lonesome Yogurt's caveat being born in mind, of course.
Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinati
The flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors
User avatar
Sambojjhanga
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Alex123 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:35 pm

From orthodox Buddhist POV,

If one is killed or hurt, Isn't that a result of past bad Kamma (which one cannot avoid)?

Isn't killing someone, for whatever purpose, even for self-defense, creates new bad kamma for oneself?
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Alex123 wrote:From orthodox Buddhist POV,

If one is killed or hurt, Isn't that a result of past bad Kamma (which one cannot avoid)?
Not necessarily.

Isn't killing someone, for whatever purpose, even for self-defense, creates new bad kamma for oneself?
You should know the answer to this: It depends
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19579
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Alex123 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:11 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:From orthodox Buddhist POV,

If one is killed or hurt, Isn't that a result of past bad Kamma (which one cannot avoid)?
Not necessarily.

Isn't killing someone, for whatever purpose, even for self-defense, creates new bad kamma for oneself?
You should know the answer to this: It depends



"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
MN135

Any comments on the above?
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:24 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:From orthodox Buddhist POV,

If one is killed or hurt, Isn't that a result of past bad Kamma (which one cannot avoid)?
Not necessarily.

Isn't killing someone, for whatever purpose, even for self-defense, creates new bad kamma for oneself?
You should know the answer to this: It depends



"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
MN135

Any comments on the above?
The text is not talking about self defense.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19579
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Alex123 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:26 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
MN135

Any comments on the above?
The text is not talking about self defense.



Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Ben » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:46 am

Alex123 wrote:Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.

Sounds a bit Jain to me Alex.
According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Heraclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16145
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby daverupa » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:50 am

Ben wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.

Sounds a bit Jain to me Alex.
According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.


I think the Vinaya specifically mentions two things - anger and intent to kill - when it says what must be absent in order for a monk to return blows without incurring a violation.

(Perhaps enlightened movie martial artists are an example of this ideal run amok.)
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4180
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:06 am

Ben wrote:According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.

And the intention to kill, even in self-defense, is unwholesome.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Billymac29 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:37 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Ben wrote:According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.

And the intention to kill, even in self-defense, is unwholesome.


agreed
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
User avatar
Billymac29
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:07 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Ben » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:58 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
Ben wrote:According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.

And the intention to kill, even in self-defense, is unwholesome.


Yes, if that is the intention.
But if the intention is to defend oneself, and another is harmed or killed in the process, then the kamma is not the same as kamma (intention) to kill.
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Heraclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16145
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Alex123 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:59 am

Ben wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.

Sounds a bit Jain to me Alex.
According to the Buddha, kamma is intention.



Can one buy a gun for self defense without intention to defend oneself (ie: to shoot someone)?

Can one point a gun at someone without intention?

Can one pull a trigger without intention (dosa) to harm someone?


If one can honestly do that, then maybe it is not akusala kamma-patha. But lets be honest, it is hard for most people to do.

And lets think, if one can kill someone without thinking about it, how "wholesome" is that?
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Newtown Shootings

Postby Ben » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:04 am

Alex123 wrote:Can one pull a trigger without intention (dosa) to harm someone?


Its an intersting assumption you have here.
I suggest you look at it and whether it is consistent with the Buddhadhamma.
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Heraclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16145
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests