So, what's their plan, Tom?
Well, the fact that just by virtue of the outcome the GOP dumped Rummy on the first day of the new order was great start. WMD my ass...
But it's a good question, SD, and one that the Dems have not been very good at answering in the past. In the first instance, I think what you're going to see is a move back to the political center as far as Congress and lawmaking goes. We've had six years of increasingly partisan lawmaking that has focused on differences that have created great divisions in this country. When the Christian Right figured out that they had a lot in common with the neocons it helped propel this divisiveness. I hope that with the new Congress some of this imbalance will be corrected - get the focus off of sectarian- and partisan-driven politics.
I'd look for driving some policy around force-reductions in Iraq - starting the correction of what the Shrub so self-righteously (and so incorrectly) started.
I'd look for attempts at pulling back on the so-called "tax reductions" that have been enacted. What most of the people who voted for these don't understand, is those reductions don't put very much back in their pockets - it's mostly helping out 0.1% of the wealthiest segment of the population.
Hopefully some progress on redressing the GOP's egregious retrograde motion on environmental policy will happen. It's becoming pretty clear that global warming is real, and carbon emissions are responsible. Why the inactivity around addressing it more directly? Oil interests, maybe? Dunno. Whatever. You can be sure the Dems will either initiate or take advantage of any opportunities to return some sense to the laws and spending around this.
Immigration - bipartisan movement on this now more likely. The Dems will actually listen to the other side, and work on coming up with a middle ground that works for both. (Unlike the partisan political machine that was in place until now).
Those are just a few things to look at. And I'm not very well-versed on the details of it all. For a more thoughtful, intelligent discussion of this issue, check out this article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6464897
And the best part of the new Congress? It bodes well for a Dem President in '08 (as long as Hillary isn't the candidate
Back to your CCW...
Do you think that citizens of the United State should be allowed to protect themselves with deadly force? Protect property that way? Should citizens be allowed to have firearms?
Have firearms? Sure. As a kid I had a Winchester .30-.30 Mod 94. Classic. Wish I still had it. Went deer hunting a couple times with it - didn't even see anything close enough to get a shot off. Also went bow hunting - much better sport, IMHO. Shotguns? Sure, why not? Trap/skeet is a blast (no pun) Bird hunting is quite challenging, too, and puts food on the table.
And if I had one of these guns in my house, and some yahoo decided to try to break in, after I called 911 to summon the police, I might - *might* - consider bringing it to bear on the situation. Hard to say, really, what one would do in a situation like that, until it actually occurs.
So, yes, I think it's fine for people to have firearms - long arms, that is, and use them in their homes if the need arises (altho I'd like to see the stats on how effective homeowners are at using weapons to defend their property, vs. getting themselves or others killed or hurt).
I think handguns for the general population are a ludicrous "right" - and I don't think there is *any* justification for having them at all. As for CCW, ditto. Ludicrous. As per all the other posts I've already written. So if the deer-hunters could just agree that hunting with a .45, while perfectly reasonable as an argument, is not really worth protecting as a right, as long as the ability to have and use longarms is kept in tact, I think we'd be fine. Pretty hard to conceal a .30-06 under a running suit in the summer time.