Previous Post
Next Post

(This post is an entry in our spring content contest. If you’d like a chance to win a Beretta APX pistol, click here for details.) 

By Bobiojimbo has published several pro-gun control articles as part of their recent Smarter Gun series, a series that promises to explore smart guns or the lack there of. Today, I’d like to review their article: Mandatory Carry, by Caleb March.

Mandatory Carry is a fictional (supposedly science fiction) story about a man named Paul, who lives in a fictional state of the USA, five minutes in the future. In this fictional state, every male is required, by law, to carry a gun. They are also required to intervene in criminal acts of violence; failure to do so is punishable by death.

The story begins with Paul walking the streets of his neighborhood when he comes across an old, wounded man. “[A] man came limping around the corner and leaned hard against the stop sign, clinging to it as his body crumpled to the sidewalk. Paul took a half step backwards and froze. The man looked old, perhaps in his eighties, and even at this distance, Paul could see that the left side of his torso and his legs were soaked with black blood.”

What does Paul do? By law he is required to help this man if the man was a victim of a violent crime. Does he help this man? Does he communicate with the old man, try to figure out what happened? Does he call for an ambulance? No.

“[Paul] looked at his own hand and he was shocked to find his gun aimed steadily at the bleeding man. He didn’t remember drawing the weapon but he understood in an instant why he had done it… Paul closed his eyes slowly, until tears welled up along his nose. The recoil of the gun shook his body and he fell backwards into the ringing silence, smiling as he drifted up into the ethereal shadows cast by the dancing leaves. ”

Paul kills the old man, and this is where we learn that there is something wrong with Paul. I hate to use mental illness as an excuse for people’s actions, and I won’t use it here, but the author is clearly intending to paint Paul as mentally unstable. Regardless, as a free, independent adult, Paul made the decision to murder an old, wounded man – for no apparent, justifiable reason.

The story then flashes back to Paul’s life, and we learn more about Paul and this fictional society where every man must carry a gun. Here we learn that Paul hates himself for fearing his weapon, and is relieved when he is home and can disarm. We also learn that Paul fears becoming a social outcast if his fears are found out, for apparently, a new fraternity has formed around guns.

There is much to be unpacked in the next paragraphs, and honestly, I haven’t the stomach nor the mental endurance to dissect all of it, and discuss in great detail all of the possible meanings. A college level thesis could be written dissecting this article. Let me then discuss what I consider more interesting parts.

Gun parties: “At these parties, the men would sit around a table and lay out their weapons under the chandelier light, watching the fragmented glare play across the polished shafts and curves, accentuating the erotic details. The room would grow quiet as the proud owners surveyed the landscape of phallic glory set out before them.”

Ah yes, the old Freudian Slip, where everything must be sexualized. Why? to make cis-gender males shy away from guns, thus destroying gun culture. It also harkens to penis envy and dick waving contests, this is an attempt of the author’s to portray gun owners as childish and closet homosexuals. This also sets up a “No True Scotsman” fallacy – as no, true masculine man would think that need a gun, or associate with something so feminine. There is also an element of occultism, a sort of silent praise and worship, as if gun owners all believe in the religion of the gun.

This of course sickens the main character, “a steady nausea danced through [Paul’s] body while he spoke [with the other men about guns], and occasionally he felt his face begin to flush, and he would excuse himself to the bathroom. In the mirror, he would watch the blood drain from his face and beads of cold sweat bloom along his hairline.” Just look at how disgusting guns, and guns culture is! Why it’s so disgusting, it makes our apparently mentally unstable, feminine “protagonist” physically ill! Another reason to hate guns.

Next, we are told a side story about how drifter raped a woman and shot a would-be-good-Samaritan. The Samaritan’s gun jammed, and the drifter shot him. They were both hung by a noose. The sole purpose of this side story is to illustrate just how perverse the gun culture is, and how it has perverted the law and society. This is of course an affront to old adage: “An armed society is a polite society.” It also flies in the face of the research that proves a strong correlation between well armed societies and lowered crime.

Finally, we learn of Paul’s fate. He is to be hung, and justifiably so. The old man was a well-connected, influential, and productive member of society. This is clearly meant to recall thoughts of recent shootings, and how the mainstream media questioned their justification. However, unlike (or perhaps like) reality, Paul’s case is pretty clear cut: he murdered that man. Paul dies, a symbol failure.

As I stated, there is much to be written about this article, and I encourage you to read it and ponder the author’s intent and message. This story is failure. The author trots out the same old arguments: people are crazy and can’t be trusted; guns are all about compensating for a small penis; guns are phallic symbols and gun owners are secretly gay; real men don’t need guns; guns are scary; gun culture is disgusting and cult like; and lastly, guns would make a “sane” man want to kill himself by cop.

I won’t bore you with the counter arguments, you know the truth.

The author fails one more time. As stated in the beginning, this story is part of an article about smart guns, yet it never once mentions smart guns. It doesn’t discuss how a smart gun could have stopped this murder (it couldn’t). It doesn’t discuss even potential pros, like stopping a child from shooting him/herself.

The author does nothing in this story but try to destroy gun owners and gun culture. He paints us as childish, closet homosexuals, patriarchal, cultish, and crazy. He paints gun culture as disgusting. He seeks to emasculate gun owners by making his protagonist feminine. All of this is highly odd, considering it’s posted on Vice’s Motherboard page, which is supposedly about science and technology, and this is supposedly part of a series on smart guns. Then again, considering the disarmament crowd, it all makes sense to them.

In end, my takeaway is this: the right to keep and bear arms isn’t just about laws, but also about culture, ideas, speech, and the stories we tell ourselves and each other.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Which is sad, because Vice back in the early 2000s was a sort of neat evolution of Lampoon and Spy. Gavin McInnes left when it became apparent they were going off the lefty deep end, then got bought by some Bloomberg front.

  1. I think this author is “Paul.” He has some sort of an undiagnosed mental issue that is interfering with his ability to think in a rational way.

  2. Somebody thinks *I* am going to pollute my mind and waste my time reading such pure shit?

  3. Good job Bobiojimbo, you and eight (8) other people read this article by Caleb March. Your review of the article most certainly has seen more attention than the article itself.

    • Thank you for using drivel in your sentence. It always grinds my very being when folks supplant the word dribble in place of the correct word. And for those that would call me a grammar nazi, it is a question of vocabulary knowledge not grammar. So work on another title for my infraction.

      • That’s just your iliterphobia showing Alex. You should really examine your bias, check your privilege and work on becoming more ASNSV (Alt-Syntax Non-Standard Vocabulary) tolerant. Perhaps if you got out of your cis-vocabulary echo chamber once in a while you could embrace those who don’t share your narrow minded concepts of language and grammer. It’s really liberating.

      • My personal pet peeve is people who cannot tell the difference between “your” and “you’re”. What do we call that? Am I a contraction nazi or an apostrophe nazi?

        • Indeed. Then vs than is another one. And don’t get me started on there, their, they’re. Lol

  4. That reminds me of the absurd portail of firearms in tv and movies. Itz obvious the writers havent owned or used firearms. My least favorite trope is when one person points his gun at someone to get them to do something. It happens so often, and not just by the antagonists, but the protatgonists to, even police or military. People who dont own guns think firearms are magical remote controls for other humans?

    • And if mere pointing of a gun doesn’t work, they cock it, or even pull the slide to chamber a round. That always cracks me up.

  5. We have had societies in the past where every man is required to at least own a gun, and show up so armed in public at regular intervals, for instance bringing that gun to church.

    Needless to say, neither the violence nor the vaguely erotic rituals envisioned by Vice ever materialized.

  6. So only the men are required to have guns?????
    No armed women?
    No mature armed children?
    Vice is part of the slave masters propaganda.

    • In the perverted, sick and twisted minds of the Progressives, only the men are oppressed closet homosexuals that need society’s help to come out. Women, on the other hand, are naturally bi-sexual.

    • Nope, just choose not to read it. That’s why I’ll now suggest you keep your comments… gun related, instead of sexuality related. This is ttaG after all.

      I think the word you were meaning to say was “heterosexual”, I know some may confuse it with your term: “homophobes”. Anyways, fixed it for you.

    • The review or the short story? If the review, I’ll work on my writing. If the short story, well.. I won’t try to change your mind.

  7. Meanwhile, point out that the Armenians were disarmed prior to being slaughtered by the Turks and you’ve lost touch with reality. Or something.

Comments are closed.