Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

Mundaka · 2005-09-05 04:13:42

Mundaka · 2005-09-05 04:27:20

clark · 2005-09-08 14:47:27

Non Sequitor: How can you ban guns unless you enforce the ban? How can you enforce the ban without guns? So its not banning guns for all people, its just banning guns for A) people who are not agents of the state and, B) persons who are not criminals (the right of a criminal to posess and carry guns has already been enshrined in law

I like the games you play. Nice footwork.

How can you enforce a ban on guns without guns? Enforce a ban on guns by banning the manufacture of all components that make a gun, including bullets. Tax the hell out of the base elements.

As for the agents of the state, ostenibibly they are acting on our behalf, and a functional government is the one that has a monopoly on violence. Don't cry to me about how the system works Mr. Texas.

As for your well researched "I read it, I think, so it must be true," claim that criminals, by virture of being criminals and being such, practice a profession, seems a bit, well, stupid. Come on Mundaka, you can do better. It's a bit like saying terroism is a profession, so they have a right to WMD's.

In summation, you can only disarm those who are already law abiding. Period.

LOL! Okay, so why do I pay taxes for police? Our prisons are brimming with those who are not law abiding, and who have been disarmed.

In summation, you can disarm most people by simply making it more difficult to obtain guns. It is the same simple logic to resolve illegal immigration- don't bust them at the border, bust the business's that hire the illegal immigrants. (but please, lets not derail an already derailed thread)

Ergo, you do not favor disarming all; rather, you favor granting a monopoly on the use of deadly force to criminals and agents of the state -- nor is it unreasonable to consider both of those catagories as synonomous.

Look, the idea behind the second ammendment is two fold- the part that is important at this point is the idea that government is not always going to be there to protect us from bad folk. This is more of an issue in rural areas. Hello! What was America mostly in 1776? What is it now? Most of our population lives in urban centers where response rates of police is at a level where self-protection by a gun is largely unneccessary.

This exact, selfsame requirement has been used in many states to effectively deny those persons their 2nd amendment rights -- so why stop there? Why not abridge and infringe upon the first? After all, some people could regard some things *I* say as Hate Speech . . . or have some who claim to be more "tolerant" already treaded on that path? I'm not trying to be a jerk here Clark

Your first ammendment right has been, is, and will continue to be infringed. We make adjustments as times change. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that your right to a ballistic weapon is sacrosacnt when all other rights have been modified to meet the realities of a changing society.

I've been around those same careless idiots and they scare the hell out of me -- but there has to be a way to do this without infringing on anybody.

Idiots who mishandle their weapons infringe upon those who handle them appropriately, or who do not wish to be around those who behave like that.

I could make the same argument about sex. Seriously -- replace the word "guns" with the word "sex" in your sentence and you will see what I mean, moreover I see no right to have sex enshrined anywhere in law.

LOL! Okay Mundaka, go have sex with a minor (a joke!). Most adults accept these restrictions on sex. Most see the sense in it. So we accept restrictions and rules around sex, but not guns? Boys and their toys. I know what you are stroking under the pillow at night, and it ain't a purring kitten.

I could make the same argument about children -- but then liberals want to regulate that too.

If you do not treat your child according to some ephermel social standard, they get taken away. Children ARE regulated.

About a reasonable compromise, agreed. How about this: As far as I know (ten to one Bill White will eat me alive on this one) the Constitution restricts the federal government, not the states. So, Some of the states can have laws that prohibit guns, and you can live there, while others can remain silent on the issue, and I can live there.

Silly Texan. Go back to Civics class. Federal Bill of Rights trumps state laws and restrictions on rights. Point of refrence: Gay Marriage. It's why they want a federal ammendment against it. State's can do as they please (but they have to recognize each others marriage contracts...)

You cite Cub Scout regs when the Cub Scouts discriminate against gays? And here I though you wanted to have my puppies . . .

Hey, one issue at a time! Besides, I want to have your puppies so I can throw them in front of your truck as you drive by.

Gun nutter.

Cobra Commander · 2005-09-09 05:33:47

As good a way as any to start the day. . .

How can you enforce a ban on guns without guns? Enforce a ban on guns by banning the manufacture of all components that make a gun, including bullets. Tax the hell out of the base elements.

So you'd tax the hell out of coal? plumbing supplies? Springs? :?

In summation, you can disarm most people by simply making it more difficult to obtain guns.

Quite true. However the ones that we most want disarmed won't be stopped and may in fact be encouraged by such an approach.

Most of our population lives in urban centers where response rates of police is at a level where self-protection by a gun is largely unneccessary.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! Wrong answer! Police response in cities is often neither fast nor reliable. Several court cases have actually ruled that police are not obligated to respond at all. Some nonsense about police having a duty only to the public as a whole, not particular individuals.

Private gun ownership is actually more important in cities than rural areas in most cases.

Your first ammendment right has been, is, and will continue to be infringed. We make adjustments as times change. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that your right to a ballistic weapon is sacrosacnt when all other rights have been modified to meet the realities of a changing society.

I think you miss Mundaka's point. In many cases, gun licensing requirements are little more than ways of prohibiting private ownership without having to get the political support to take that step.

clark · 2005-09-09 05:56:25

And the lawyers always crawl out from the most unlikeliest of places...

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! Wrong answer! Police response in cities is often neither fast nor reliable. Several court cases have actually ruled that police are not obligated to respond at all. Some nonsense about police having a duty only to the public as a whole, not particular individuals.

The court rules that police are not obligated to respond to an emergency call? Care to cite the precedent that establishes that police do not have to actually do their sworn job?

I have heard that police are not required to physically enforce restraining orders 24 hours a day, but your claim is a bit preposterous CC.

So you'd tax the hell out of coal? plumbing supplies? Springs?

Sure, why not? I'm sure the resourceful nutter can put together something, even if we bend over backwards to make it hard, however, I'm willing to settle for a general reduction in the number of idiots who can walk down the street to purchase a well machined pistol because he wants a "gat" to hold sideways like a moron.

Quite true. However the ones that we most want disarmed won't be stopped and may in fact be encouraged by such an approach.

May be encouraged? Encouraged to obtain weapons that are not sold over the counter? How? We don't sell nuclear weapons or cruise missiles, yet the criminal element somehow seems incapable of really getting these items.

The problem is that guns are so easily accessible and obtainable. Make it harder to obtain, and the criminals will look for more easily obtainable weapons. I'm fine with that. I would rather face a criminal with a bat than one with a gun he purchased from K-Mart.

Private gun ownership is actually more important in cities than rural areas in most cases.

Why? Urban density increases the likelihood that people will use guns on other people. In a forest, you are more apt to hit a tree. In a city, discharging your weapon, you are more apt to hit a person.

think you miss Mundaka's point. In many cases, gun licensing requirements are little more than ways of prohibiting private ownership without having to get the political support to take that step.

Prohibiting? No, it is about restricting ownership to those who take the steps that demonstrate they are responsible. Does this suck for those who live in a culture that teaches respect for firearms? Yes. Does it make sense to institute a change when that culture is no longer dominant? Yes.

A mental defective, like myself, can walk into a gun shop, and go merrily off to do lord knows what. How is this sane? Gun shop owners are looking at a sale, they don't care. The gun companies are looking at the bottom line, they don't care. Society screams, "my rights!" and blithely ignore the social cost, for what?

I own a rifle, which is used for one thing, hunting of animals. The last thing I would ever want to do with a rifle is use it for self defense (unless to club someone with, I guess). There are better ways to deal with most situations, and better ways to protect yourself instead of turning to a gun. It is a false sense of security.

Look at it this way, I am more than willing to allow individuals to own and operate fully automatic weapons, assuming that their is some manner of licensing and safety requirement that demonstrates a level of safe operation of the weapon. There is my compromise.

Gun nutter.

Cobra Commander · 2005-09-09 06:33:07

The court rules that police are not obligated to respond to an emergency call? Care to cite the precedent that establishes that police do not have to actually do their sworn job?
I have heard that police are not required to physically enforce restraining orders 24 hours a day, but your claim is a bit preposterous CC.

Preposterous yes, but true.
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

Some highlights:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)
Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

This is a case where three women were repeatedly raped in their own home after calling police twice.

Several other similar cases with similar rulings exist, a few listed in the link. The police can't protect you. They don't even have to try.

May be encouraged? Encouraged to obtain weapons that are not sold over the counter? How? We don't sell nuclear weapons or cruise missiles, yet the criminal element somehow seems incapable of really getting these items.

If you're a mugger or burglar what are you gonna do with a cruise missle? How would you hide it?

A small 9mm pistol on the other hand, easily hidden and extremely valuable in that line of work. Especially if some well-meaning but ill-advised politicos disarm all the victims.

The problem is that guns are so easily accessible and obtainable. Make it harder to obtain, and the criminals will look for more easily obtainable weapons.

Fallacy. The actual number of people that are a threat with a weapon, the real criminal types, are a small segment of the population. It doesn't take many weapons to fuel them. So say we outright banned gun ownership and prosecuted anyone manufacturing them. We still have millions of unrecoverable guns already on the streets and vast quantities of ammunition. Further, reloading ammo is not that hard, smuggling it is fairly easy and the criminal element has a "professional need" of it. Even then the manufacture of new guns wouldn't be stopped, if street thugs can set up clandestine drug labs that can sure as hell set up crude machine shops.

Pakistan is littered with them for example.

Criminals already have a desire for guns. Banning them makes them more attractive because they are more effective against unarmed victims. It creates an underground market, leading to further criminal activity.

Unless you think that "War on Drugs" thing is working out.

Why? Urban density increases the likelihood that people will use guns on other people.

Those are the cases where it's most important that they work. If some violent goon was after your family would you rather they have the means to protect themselves or hope that they can call the police who may or may not arrive in time if they deign to respond at all?

Prohibiting? No, it is about restricting ownership to those who take the steps that demonstrate they are responsible.

And I'm sure you are sincere about licensing making sure that only people who can handle a gun safely can get one. But many people treat "licensing" as a back-door ban, make the licensing requirements so strict and the fees so high that no one can get one.

A mental defective, like myself, can walk into a gun shop, and go merrily off to do lord knows what. How is this sane?

Guilty until proven innocent.

Are you a convicted felon? Ever been in a mental institution? Ever been a member of a terrorist group?

No? Then what's the problem. Most likely you aren't going to go and shoot up the office tomorrow. A calculated risk based on the needs of the one versus the whole. Real "social contract" kind of stuff.

Unless your entire premise of governance revolves around paranoid distrust of law-abiding citizens and the fantasy that "we'll protect you" when something goes wrong.

There are better ways to deal with most situations, and better ways to protect yourself instead of turning to a gun. It is a false sense of security.

In most cases, yes, there are better ways. But sometimes there aren't. What you suggest is denying that last resort, revoking that option. If the cops don't come and you can't talk the bad guy out of whatever he intends, tough. Enjoy the robbery/rape/murder or combination. I find that stance sickening and morally vacant. In essence advocating that people rely on the mercy of those who have none and cling to unrealistic hopes of the cavalry showing up in the nick of time.

The simple fact is that gun bans make things real easy for violent criminals. I'd rather work the other side of it.

reddragon · 2005-09-10 15:56:16

But many people treat "licensing" as a back-door ban, make the licensing requirements so strict and the fees so high that no one can get one.

I do not think that this view can be taken seriously. The fact that many ordinary people do own guns essentially proves it false. Licensing, at least at present, is not very restrictive at all and is the least we can do to protect people from violent crime. I understand why many people would oppose an outright ban on guns, but to say that licensing is infringing on their rights is really going too far.

I find that the "If guns are banned or even licensed, we can't rebel against tyranny should the need arise view" (especially when talking about just licensing) to be incompatible with the "If guns are illegal/restricted criminals will get them and ordinary people won't" view. If guns are still available even when restricted or banned, then if we really need to rebel we can still get them. Sure it would be a bit harder, but any successful rebellion would need good organization and a way of getting supplies to its army so it could supply them with guns. It would also need tanks, fighter-plans, and warships for that matter which most civilians don't have.

There are many countries where far fewer people are killed with guns than in the US, and they are not countries with repressive regimes. Canada, I think is one example. There are ways to decrease the murder rate without decreasing the rate of successful self-defense. (Also, I beleive that many more people are murdered with guns than are stopped from murdering by them. Thus they are doing more harm than good.)

Palomar · 2005-09-11 15:00:55

::EDIT:: I'm moving the original content of this post to the "Propitiation for the God of War" thread in the Martian Politics folder. Thanks.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2005-09-11 17:26:11

Mundaka · 2005-09-11 20:01:38

clark · 2005-09-12 06:55:46

Pollyanna loves Cassandra?

I can be Cassandra, no one listened to her either. Stupid Trojans.

So, to offer an analogy, if I ban all the components that make cocaine, the ban on cocaine will be enforced?

Let me turn it around, if you want to start twisting analogies: If I offer cocaine at discount prices in every K-Mart and local store across the country, there will be less use of cocaine and fewer people will buy cocaine?

The problem is a matter of prevalence and over-saturation. A liquor store on every corner is a symptom of a larger problem within an inner city ghetto; however, it is also a source of the problem too.

I guess you can legislate morality!

Well, you appear to assume otherwise… but perhaps you can explain how our marriage laws, divorce laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-theft laws, drinking prohibitions, mandatory wages, etc are not the legislation of morality? Perhaps it is not effective in all instances, but you know very well that laws are a social construct to impose a general morality held by the group.

Quite a jobs program -- should take a generation or two of American youth to fill the slots. Plus the military muscle to back them up when they tread on too many toes.

What do you know, looks like I’m going Red! Guess I can move to your state now. Hot damn… er, yee-haw!

Tax the hell out of base elements? You mean steel? Hey, that's one way to support the working man -- force what's left of our manufacturing base out of the country.

I knew I was going to get spanked on the suggestion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Feel better now?

What you gun-nutters seem to dance around, or purposely ignore (probably due to the NRA brain washing that occurs on the AM conservative radio) is that I am for gun ownership. I believe owning a gun is as American as apple pie. Just as I believe in waving a flag on Flag day, or standing during the national anthem. Go America!

That said, I ain’t no yeller belli northen yankee that dun think I knows better, but I does think that cheap Saturday night specials and a bunch of ignorant yahoo’s is a dangerous combination. We see the results in the urban city ghetto’s or the schools where the kids are just wasting themselves over colors and turf that is owned by a local slum lord. We see the results in a lot of innocent people who can’t leave their homes because it is a war zone outside. We see the small children pressed into gang life out of the necessity to survive in this situation. Cheap, unregulated guns are part and parcel of the problem. Yeah, there is more to it, and yes, more than just regulating and licensing gun ownership needs to take place, but here and now, this is what we are discussing. This small piece of the puzzle.

Now, I believe in gun ownership, and I also realize that the situation as is will undermine our right to own guns in the long term. The idiots are ruining it for everyone else. Eventually a large enough majority (as we see with encroaching restrictions on gun ownership) will be able to ram an outright ban through the local, state, and eventually federal level. How? Because they will have idiots to point to and use as a rallying cry, just as they have done each and every time.

Those who believe in gun ownership are a shrinking minority. Not a good position to be in when dealing with a democracy.

Wake up. Like a bunch of ignorant yahoo’s manning the fort at the Alamo, you cry, “fight on!” Well, goody for you! I’ll remember you. My solution, and a lot of other sensible gun owners, is to defang the opposition. How so? By removing their ability to lump responsible gun owners in with irresponsible ones. It’s time to lop off an arm, and simply say, some people should not have the right to own a weapon. There is nothing wrong with that, and it shows a level of compromise that is sensible and reasonable.

For such a smart guy, you are terrifyingly naive. Then again I'm paranoid, but maybe paranoia is just hightened awareness.

I think the pep pills might have something to do with it… “Been driven all night with blood on the wheels…”

So by your standards England and Australia did not have functional governments until the gun bans of the 1990s -- and our government accomplished nothing until recently (though we obviously have a long way to go.) Conversly, the U.S.S.R., the P.R.C., Hitler's 3rd Reich, Uganda, Rowanda, and Guatamala are all examples of the type of government we should aspire to.

Um, no. A functional government is the one that has a monopoly on violence. It has the sole right and responsibility to merit out punishment. A functional government cannot share this power with other groups within its sphere of influence and be considered functional, or legitimate. An example is Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or parts of Russia where local warlords control the area and can act with impunity and no fear of reprisal from the local government.

This is why the federal government took mobsters so seriously back in the 1930’s.

Because you are willing to pay the price for security -- or at least what you think that price is -- but are unwilling to pay the price of freedom. Without freedom, security lasts only as long as you have angels in power.

What I found funny about the case CC linked to is that it merely stated that individuals cannot expect the police to be responsible for their individual safety. Police are required to act on the behalf of the general public. There has to be a general failure to serve and protect, not an individual one. What that means is that individuals cannot sue the police because they didn’t protect them in a manner the individual thought would be more appropriate.

I think we have a difference of opinion, I do not believe I am giving up any freedom here. A gun enables an individual to ostensibly be more effective in defending and resisting threats to your person. However, a gun is not necessary to defend or resist threats to your person. That is the fundamental error your argument makes.

The second amendment is more than gun ownership. Like the declaration of independence, it merely states an inherent right- the right of the individual to defend ones self and their liberty. As such, I see no inherent right to one particular weapon versus another. As such, I am more than willing to accept a system to ensure that individuals understand the operation and maintenance of their weapon.

I once met a man who kept a reminder on his office wall of what he had found inside jail cells: a submachinegun, built inside a prison out of junk. It was reliable, and had a cyclic rate of fire of just over 300 rounds per minute. It was found with over a hundred rounds of ammo.

I think this tells more about the state of our penitentiary system than anything else.

What of the hundreds of millions of weapons that are already out there? How will you get those from people who will not surrender them? With butterknives?

It will take time, patience, and persistence. Just because the road is long doesn’t mean you should give up before you even try.

Federal Bill of Rights trumps state laws and restrictions on rights? So you are saying the states are not allowed to pass gun restrictions of any kind? (I think we are talking past each other: the states can pass laws forbiding gay marriage, and then don't have to recognize those marriages (barring a federal amendment.)

Well, the thing about gun ownership is that it is up for debate with the Supreme Court- it has to do with interpretation of the Second Amendment and “milita”. Generally though, no state can outright ban gun ownership, but they can place restrictions on certain types of guns. And of course, they “could” ban guns and the federal government would be unable to do anything about it until an individual brought the issue to the Supreme Court (a virtual certainty given the NRA and you nutters)

Mundaka · 2005-09-12 10:51:06

clark · 2005-09-12 11:37:24

No one will ever ignore you, Clark.

Well, they try.

You dodged the question -- and you call me a dancer! Read below.

I didn’t dodge the question anymore than you dodged my reply. Look, banning components is obviously a bad idea. I’ll call a spade a spade. That idea engendered your analogy. However, there was an integral point that was being over-looked, which I am attempting to demonstrate. I believe guns are to easily accessible and too few take ownership responsibly enough (and this is a symptom of over saturation, if anyone can get one, and anyone can get one everywhere, how much respect will they show it?).

We banded together, made sure everyone was armed -- in some cases those of us who had weapons loaned them to those who didn't -- and *then* got together with local police and the Border Patrol, who by this time were worried about total mayhem and were forced to act.

Good for you. However, were you arming people who didn’t know the barrel from the stock? Were you teaching them to hold their gat sideways? Or perhaps, you and your band of merry men took the time to understand the proper use and safety of the weapons. Realize that not everyone does the same, and then you begin to realize my point. People who do not act responsibly with a gun have no business owning or operating one. I would prefer individuals having to demonstrate a minimum level of understanding and proficiency first, instead of assuming that they are not idiots and simply know better.

Yes, I do -- the question is, "Whose morality are you enforcing?" I choose the morality of a free, self reliant people. Your morality is that of a people dependant upon a tyrant.

I’m enforcing no ones morality. I think it is all the same (but then I get screamed at for seeing how nothing is fundamentally different, but I digress). But, to the point here, I do not believe morality, or the application of morality comes at the end of a gun.

Not if you use exclaimations like . . . what did you say . . . Yi Ha? Nobody talks like that here, ese.[/quote
Eh, pardone me, vato. Odale.
Oh BOO HOO!
Clark, you came at me with both barrels blazing and you were none too gentle about it -- and contrary to your assertions, you sure didn't see me crying about it.
You think I’m crying? Please. Sorry, misunderstanding due to a lack of emoticons. You took me to task for making a suggestion while also throwing in your two cents regarding the sorry state of manufacturing in America. You were obviously releasing some pent up frustration about other political views. Thus, me asking if you felt better.
Look, if you must know, I have a great deal of respect for you: you are smart, charming, have a wicked sense of humor, are totally unpredictable and an endlessly fascinating conversationalist. You also go to the dirt for what you believe in.
You always try to sweet talk me. And no, I still won’t sleep with you. Stop trying.
Don't expect me to just lay back and enjoy it, or to be stupid just because I'm from Texas. Maybe this is my fault -- maybe I did come on too strong in my initial post and provoked you. If so, I'm sorry.
I don’t think you are stupid because you are from Texas. I think you are stupid because you surf. Come on, I’m from Cali, dude. I know the score. Totally, fer sure.
Then relax. Soon enough you will have the votes to get enough support for Congress to be forced to Amend the Constitution and the point will be moot.
Dude, listen! I respect the right to own a gun. However, I can see the writing on the wall. To me, it makes more sense to head the anti-gun lobby off at the pass and disassociate from the idiots who misuse guns. By doing so, those who support gun ownership can ensure that outright bans never gain the necessary majority to affect an actual ban.
To many nutters want to make this a fight based on principle alone, and it is ultimately a losing proposition. I don’t want to see a ban in place, I would rather see a compromise which is at least acceptable to my own sensibilities (and I believe most gun rights advocates) while there is still an opportunity to make an arrangement to our benefit.
Make a deal now, and we get more than we would if we try and make a deal later.
All it does to those whose views you oppose is entrench us in our positions. Your goal is to persuade, remember?
No, my goal is to piss off enough people to see what happens. We all enjoy different types of fireworks. Besides, if I actually persuaded someone, then they might believe in the half-assed ramblings of mine, and really, even when I stop to think about it, is rather frightening.
Tell that to a woman, surprized in her bed by a 250lb male attacker. I say she does require a gun to defend herself -- moreover, anyone who takes that right from any woman I care about becomes a threat to her, and by extention, me.
Well, Mr. Man, what does the *lady* have to say? They get to vote now, or haven’t you heard?
So you do believe that guns should be confiscated from the people who already have them? Or do you believe in gun ownership, as you stated above?
No, I don’t believe that. However, you can begin a system that will slowly grandfather out all the existing weapons. Look, you can come up with a bunch of excuses on why we shouldn’t even attempt it, but we will never know unless we try. Mars teach you anything, or what?
Do you see why it is difficult for us to believe the control freaks -- little dehumanization there, to get into the "gun nutter" spirit (liberals are so kind spirited) -- especially after the SKS betrayal in California?
Oh, BOO-HOO. Gun nutters will just get more of the same unless they look for a way to defang the opposition and stop making the fight one based solely on this esoteric principle. Be a little flexible now, while you still have a say.
Oh yeah, kill Paris.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-09-05 04:13:42

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#52 2005-09-05 04:27:20

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#53 2005-09-08 14:47:27

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#54 2005-09-09 05:33:47

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#55 2005-09-09 05:56:25

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#56 2005-09-09 06:33:07

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#57 2005-09-10 15:56:16

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#58 2005-09-11 15:00:55

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#59 2005-09-11 17:26:11

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#60 2005-09-11 20:01:38

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#61 2005-09-12 06:55:46

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#62 2005-09-12 10:51:06

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#63 2005-09-12 11:37:24

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#64 2005-09-12 13:03:05

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#65 2005-09-12 13:52:11

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#66 2005-09-12 18:49:49

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#67 2005-10-10 14:48:13

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#68 2006-04-21 16:07:04

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

Board footer