Northam isnt a racist, but he is still a terrible governor.

As promised, here is my explanation for my claim that Ralph Northam is a terrible governor for anyone who values personal freedom.

Of course, gun control is first on the list. Gun control is a canary-in-the-coal-mine issue. Any politician who seeks to disarm or limit the choice of arms to citizens who are not criminals or deranged is an enemy of Liberty. Northam is trying to revive a number of gun control measures that have already been tried and proved useless both here and elsewhere. To do so with measures already known to accomplish nothing useful cannot be about public safety, they are just about controlling people.

Another canary issue is vaccination for Human Papilloma Virus. Northam sought to require vaccination for HPV as a condition for attending public schools. He opposed a parental opt-out. Make no mistake, HPV vaccination is a good thing, and I would have had my kids vaccinated had it been available. But good ideas do not require force.

It is reasonable to require vaccination for measles or diptheria in order to attend school as those diseases can be spread by the normal contact in the classroom, but HPV is a venereal disease and not spread in the classroom. It has no connection with attendance in school, and Northam’s ploy is simply using school attendance as a club to force his good decision on those who do not agree, for whatever reason.

Northam has tried to by pass the legislature to implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by executive order which would severely disadvantage Virginia in the manufacturing sector, as well as raise the price of electricity for all of us. Even accepting the most extreme estimates for the warming potential of CO2, neither Virgnia’s participation nor the RGGI as a whole would make even one tenth of an inch in sea level rise in 100 years. The measure is purely virtue signalling with no positive value.

Northam simply jumps to conclusions based on scant knowledge of an issue and proceeds to use the force of government to impose his “good ideas” on everyone because he can, exercising power for the sake of power.

17 thoughts on “Northam isnt a racist, but he is still a terrible governor.

  1. Northam does favor several gun control issues. Primarily, the universal background checks, even for private sales.

    That puts in agreement with about 90% of the nation. Hardly radical.

    He does want to reinstate the 1 gun a month limitation. Since Virginia is a prime source of weapons for cities and states in the East that are used in crimes, I think that is a reasonable accommodation.

    The Extreme Risk Protective Order is an effort to keep the guns, as you say, out of the criminal or deranged. Most of the mass shootings have had some kind of warning via actions, words and social media postings. Yet we are still waiting for the aftermath and body counts to take any kind of action. The gun lobby even shot down restricting gun ownership of people who are receiving SS disability because they declare mental illness. Can’t have it both ways.
    Getting the guns out of the hands of those who would do us harm by virtue of mental instability, criminal history or restraining orders is pointless after the fact.

    High capacity magazines and “assault looking” weapons can be negotiating points to get the more important issues in discussion.

    HPV vaccinations? The problem is that the vaccine is much less effective in older people. And if young teens are not having sex, that would be news to just about anyone not from another planet. Not to mention the prevalence of HPV among adults and that it is the greatest cause of cervical cancer. If not mandatory, let’s at least have the parents get full information via a class or counseling, then sign a legal release saying they fully understand the risks they are exposing their child and others they may have relations with in the future. And perhaps absolve the rest of the nation from paying for health issues arising from HPV and cancer.

    Seems fair.

    Honestly, how much of a disadvantage would Virginia be from curtailing greenhouse gasses. How much would electricity really go up?

    To me you are making Northam sound like like a dictator rather than what he is: a centrist or center left governor with an agenda he was elected on and trying to get it done via legislation.

    However, you did outline why you don’t like him. Would have been hard to do in 60-80 words in the lame Pilotonline comment section.


  2. So I guess you are asserting there is little reason to increase efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged and criminals. Not enough “damage” to worry about.

    You can bet on one thing however. If every mass shooting were done in the name of Allah we would most certainly have done a lot more. As it is the vast majority of public, workplace, school, mall etc shootings are an “all-American” phenomenon.

    I know, few people die in these scenarios. Cost benefit and what not.

    But, consider the toll of these acts of terrorism. What? Terrorism?

    Yes. The impact of random shootings of strangers in public places has the same effect as if they were planned by a terrorist organization. The trauma lasts for a long time. The sense of security is lost. People demand crackdowns. Personal freedoms get trampled.

    Bottom line: if we really value the right to bear arms, ignoring the corrosive effects of random shooting as merely a statistical insignificant annoyance is a mistake.


    1. Keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane is worthwhile, but limiting MY choice of firearms is not.

      If we find it necessary as a society to curtail the rights of law abiding citizens, there should be a strong public purpose for doing so, and the curtailment must be effective in accomplishing that end.

      A 0.0000086% chance of a non-gang member being killed with a firearm does not rise to that level, and a ban on AR type rifles when they account for less than 3% of firearms deaths would not be effective in any case, as even that small number could not be seriously reduced by forcing a different choice of weapon.

      Proposals to ban AR type rifles are a major curtailment of my rights and are really nothing more than virtue signaling to no real purpose.


      1. I tried to verify that the 80% of gun homicides are gang related without much success.Just defining “gang related” is problematic. Drive by shootings. Drug deal gone bad. Turf war. Bar fights. Jealousy.

        But that may be beside the point.

        My point about the effects of terrorism was dismissed as irrelevant and not even worth worrying about as far as providing a strong public purpose.

        Limiting your choice of firearms? Universal background checks on all sales and transfers would limit your choice how? One gun a month would limit your choice of firearms how? Even registration and licensing would not curtail your choice of firearms, and this was not even suggesting in possible legislation.

        Banning assault style weapons would,of course, limit your choices. Just like fully automatic weapons restrictions do now. 10 round magazines would limit your choice to a degree.

        But like I said, in the arms control debates these are negotiating points in the political realm.

        You also ignored the point that if random shootings continue unabated over the next few years, you can bet that universal background checks will be the least of your worries. All that is needed is for the majority of Americans to link the gun lobby with the lack of domestic security via random and mass shootings.

        Then the camel’s nose will not be under the tent. There will probably be no tent.

        You see people don’t like to have to worry about random shootings no matter how rare or how good the odds are. Getting hit by lightening probably has similar odds, but at least you can see the storm coming and the bolt will not hit you on a sunny, cloudless day.


        1. My rights are not negotiating points to be bargained for. They are rights.

          Would you be content to allow blacks to vote in ‘some’ elections?

          Nor is a political majority justification for denying rights, We have a Constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

          Slavery was legal by majority consent for 200 years, but it was always wrong.

          It is disturbing that it has become politically acceptable to vote away the rights of others.

          That is ‘Northam think.’


          1. None of my suggestions are taking away any of your rights. We already specify what kinds of weaponry you can possess. New laws may modify that a bit.

            If you can buy all the guns you want, how are your rights being curtailed?

            If 90% of the people want universal background checks, how is that affecting your right to self defense and owning legal weapons.

            (“Voting in some elections” is as relevant to this discussion as rice pudding. Closing polls in some areas that are predominantly black is closer to it. But I digress.)

            Your main complaint, as I see it, is anonymity. That is not in the 2nd Amendment. And if we are to address the problem of criminals and the deranged having access, then anonymity is not possible.


    1. Rational, evidenced based?

      Your chances of being killed by the 11th+round from an ARtype rifle are somewhat less than dying from a meteor strike, so what is the evidence based grounds for a ban?

      What you and Len seek is to curtail my rights based on your entirely emotional prejudice against ugly firearms.

      You both seem to think that because you may be able to summon the votes to do it that makes it right or rational. But you forget that all sorts of awful and stupid things have been popular

      Liked by 1 person

  3. My comment was in response to your completely illogical analysis on display today. First on Northam and now on needed gun control. Just one example, you continue with emotional rants about YOUR rights completely ignoring that – as Len points out – YOUR rights are not infringed in ANY way by most of the measures you oppose.

    In our country, hundreds of people have been killed or maimed by the 11th plus round in gun magazines and NOBODY had ever been killed by a meteorite and yet you claim that your views on magazine limits are evidence based but ours are not?

    The measure of the need for change in public policy is NOT the kind of personal probability analysis you are throwing out. Which on gun statistics approaches tautology by eliminating from the “math” various categories of mayhem. Suicide, for example, is left out of the “math” even though the risk of suicide is about 5x where guns are present. But I will say that this “math” argument is consistent with the solipsistic approach that you display on every subject – an approach that puts zero weight on the death, pain or suffering of others but nearly infinite weight on YOUR personal inconvenience.


  4. Hundreds killed with the 11th+ round from an AR magazine? I doubt that there are 100 altogether and most of those in one incident in Las Vegas. Remember that the deadliest mass shootings were accomplished with ordinary handguns.

    The odds of being killed by a meteorite are surprisingly high, about 1 in 700,000.

    They are skewed by the possibility of catastrophic events. Imagine the Tunguska Event over a populated area.

    Oh, and yes, my math excludes suicides and gang killings. We were, after all, talking about Len’s odds. In any case, I suspect the suicide toll for the 11th+ round from an AR is going to be zero.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So, in your estimation maybe “only” a hundred people have been killed because the maniac used large capacity magazines. And really, that’s okay because other sorts of weapons have also been used to commit mass murder. What complete rubbish! High capacity magazines have been a factor in many of the most egregious examples of mass murder in recent years.

      Sandy Hook
      Fort Hood

      A comparative study of mass shootings with these “assault weapons” versus those with ordinary guns concluded that 135% more people were shot and 57% more killed when an assault weapon was used. This result conforms to common sense and yet you want to deny it. Because of the minor inconvenience of changing magazines more often at the shooting range?


  5. This debate can go on forever.

    To me the problem revolves around whether the right to bear arms means a right to anonymity. I don’t think it ever did. The right evolved from a need for a militia to secure the nation in times of turmoil. Such as Washington used militias to put down a rebellion against the government. In such a case, anonymity is pointless because raising a militia means the leaders have to know who has and can use a firearm.

    In addition, it is the concept of anonymity which allows the marginal folks to hide behind social media, develop grudges and eventually act out in a deadly fashion. Or anonymity allows criminals to stay out of the spotlight while they practice their crafts.

    To be left alone is one thing. But to build an arsenal without any public record to establish responsibility and capability with at least minimal skills in arms handling is a bit reckless. You say you are a responsible gun owner. Why should I believe you can handle deadly weapons in public? My right to life precludes your right to bear arms, in my opinion.

    Limited arms ownership is a right according to the 2nd Amendment. I say “limited” because we have already established by court rulings and law that automatic weapons are not without limits regarding registration and licensing.

    But in order to fulfill the drumbeat of “law abiding citizens” having the right to bear arms, we have to accept that there must be some way of defining those who are not law abiding. And that if we do that after the fact, as in murder cases, then we have empty words.

    And this is where strict universal background checks of all arms transfers, licensing and registration come into the picture. Those will not affect in any way, shape or fashion your right to buy and bear arms. None. It might inconvenience the sale of arms, but the 2nd Amendment does not specify that the sale of arms should be without paperwork.

    Back to my contention that random shootings are not just about the immediate body counts. They affect thousands more, and probably millions if you think about the slipping sense of security at work, at school and at public events and gatherings.

    You can complain about the trampling of your rights. But nothing in this comment does that. Registering to vote does not infringe upon the right to vote. Registering your arms does not infringe upon your right to bear them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Len, You have not shown ANY evidence that arms of any kind in my hands represent a danger to you. Absent that, how is it any business of yours, as an individual or through government, how many or what kind I possess?

      Yes, there are people who should not have access to firearms. Gun owners, through the NRA, have worked diligently to help craft laws to accomplish that, but they are sabotaged by those who wish to ban the arms for all of us.

      Project exile was very effective in getting arms out of the hands of felons, until Clinton era prosecutors plea bargained away its teeth. The NICS database could be a very effective tool, but the Obama justice Dept blocked the addition of over 200,000 names of fugitives from justice that should have been on the list.

      Every year, tens of thousands of transactions are blocked by the NICS system, and lying on the NICS form is a felony, yet prosecution is rare. In 2010 the Obama Justice Dept prosecuted only 44 out of over 72,000 denials due to falsification of the application form. Less than 1 in 1000 straw purchases detected were prosecuted.

      The NICS system could work, but those who want to ban guns don’t want it to.

      When your side starts making effective use of the tools it already has, perhaps we can discuss my firearms, but so long as your side makes no effort to keep firearms out of the wrong hands to keep the issue alive, you are correct that i will dig in my heels and resist.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Your answer was predicted and acknowledged.

    I think you are wrong and you feel the same about me position.

    We are done here. One quick question though.

    How many have the Trump administration prosecuted? With an all Republican government and courts.

    Just curious.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s