I sent that e-mail to about a dozen people in the hope that they, in turn, would
write their own letters to their congretional delegations.

--- On Mon, 9/29/08, Michelle M Ress <Safoocat@...> wrote:

From: Michelle M Ress <Safoocat@...>
Subject: Re: [guntotingliberals] copy of e-mail I sent Congressman Camp this
morning. I also spoke with one of his aids about this.
To: guntotingliberals@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 3:39 PM






That's a good idea. I'd go for it.

Michelle
 http://www.flickr. com/photos/ safoocat/

--- On Mon, 9/29/08, Roger Metzger <metzger_r@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Roger Metzger <metzger_r@yahoo. com>
Subject: [guntotingliberals] copy of e-mail I sent Congressman Camp this
morning. I also spoke with one of his aids about this.
To: guntotingliberals@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, September 29, 2008, 10:26 AM

08Sept29Congressman Dave Camp
Dear Mr. Camp:
Up until yesterday, my sense was that the proposed BAILOUT would reward the
very people most responsible for the recent financial problems in this country.
Yesterday I got a phone call from a friend in Utah who has studied this issue
more than I have and he thinks the same thing.
You should probably vote against the bailout legislation that has been proposed
as of last week. But it is my custom to offer more than yes-or-no answers. So
here is what I am suggesting that you propose as an alternative:
However much money is being proposed to bail out the financial giants
($700,000,000 or more?), divide up that same amount among the adult citizens of
this country ($8,000 or so each?) If the personal allowance is counted as income
for the purpose of determining eligibility for all government programs, there
would be an enormous savings to taxpayers in the form of reduced costs of
administrating those programs.
My sense is that between the additional money ordinary citizens would have to
invest or spend and the savings to taxpayers, those factors would do more to
correct the present downturn in the economy than a bailout of banks, mortgage
companies or both.
Our computer isn¢t working very well and at the moment and our printer
doesn¢t work either but if I can send you a snail-mail about this too, I¢ll
try to do so.
Yours truly,
Roger Metzger
Buckley, Michigan 49620

--- On Mon, 6/30/08, Michelle M Ress <Safoocat@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: Michelle M Ress <Safoocat@yahoo. com>
Subject: RE: [guntotingliberals] The ACLU on Gun Control
To: guntotingliberals@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 10:39 PM

As long as gun rights are based on the Constitution there will always be room
to disagree on what the Second Amendment really means. Gun rights should be
based on the natural right of a living thing to protect itself. The Constitution
can't give us any rights we didn't have in the first place.
 
We had a right to protect ourselves from the beginning of time, not since the
Constitution was written.

Michelle

--- On Mon, 6/30/08, George Johnson <el_jefe99@hotmail. com> wrote:

From: George Johnson <el_jefe99@hotmail. com>
Subject: RE: [guntotingliberals] The ACLU on Gun Control
To: guntotingliberals@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, June 30, 2008, 8:14 PM

The ACLU has one chance to get its head out of its ass on the second amendment
as far as I am concerned. I have wanted them to come around on this for a long
time and if they choose to maintain their nonsense after this I give up on
them.
I had hoped for a while they could be brought around to the correct viewpoint
on this issue and become a liberal organization of note that does support the
2nd Amendment. I am begining to think it is a pipe dream and that an
organization that is supposed to be based on principle is going to let their
personal biases color their policies.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]