Fun talk:Weapon of gun

I wish

I wish the all-time-classic CP phrase "Weapon of Gun" wasn't immortalised by this redirect. Anyone else think it's worth preserving as a proper article? DogP 19:01, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

C'mon, we need a proper article for this? DogP 03:42, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

There, I maded one. Please improve. DogP 12:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Who has a difflink for the original usage of this phrase? DogP 20:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Lemme check... --Sid 20:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

There we go; found in the description of Image:Andy Weapon of Gun.jpg --Sid 20:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Sniped by one minute? Come on! XD --Sid 20:32, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm all over ya! DogP 20:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Fun

Doesn't this go in fun space?--cm² 19:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Since it's an old CP riff, maybe that space. But there's already something there... ħuman 08:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Borat writed this? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yesh, itsa niice. ^narchist 18:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete

This is old, dated, and not even tat interesting. Delete! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Humorless fascist^sociopath 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If the page were re-written to actually address why CP's attitude on gun-control is horribly misguided, I'd say keep it. As is, please delete. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No more purging CP space like it's a fucking project. There are other people here too. 07:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then it needs a re-write. Conservapedia has generated plenty of misinformation about gun control and gun crime. Parody or no, this article makes a lot of assumptions based on some crappy grammar. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Stupid inside joke made about a doofy reality denialst that can't defend himself because he's too clueless. Only people who still have their greasy thumbs in CP's stink would really care about this; it's a testament to their existence I guess. But anyone coming here for say, I dunno, the mission to refute anti-science probably doesn't give a shit about stupid crap some pointless moron said. If we want to write an article about anti-gun myths spread by crank sites, we can include CP. But having a whole page dedicated to a specific stupid Andy phrasing is just a waste of my time and the time of probably anybody who wasn't there to snigger when it happened.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre}

I agree. This place would be much less fun without cruft like this. Delete it ASAP. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the good knight. We don't need a page about every silly turn of phrase Andy has ever come up with. Delete and develop the gun control article instead. Spud (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Delete and develop"? Is that an order, officer? And we don't have a page about every silly turn of phrase Andy has ever come up with, and there's no drive to create one. Straw man or slippery slope, pick one.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Part of RW's history and one of the actually funny things that came out of the Conservapedia obsession. If you are worried about "cruft", start by booting out Proxima and everyone whose contributions these days are mainly to the Saloon Bar.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, we've had the great CPspace cull, anything that survived that should stay. Being a CP page, you don't have to read it if you don't want to, and it won't come up on Random Page. Sophie^Wilder 15:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been going over the logs and it looks like nothing of value is ever added between 5:00 and 13:00 UTC. Why not simply disable editing during those periods? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a slippery slope. Just edit the damned article so it's somewhat informative. Look, I'll start by adding something.--TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but I really don't know what else could be added other than like, a reword to take out the stupid attitude of the article, that wouldn't better be added to Gun Control. Seriously, imagine yourself as a new person. Why would you EVER want or need to know that Andy once said something stupid. How would you inform people of this? "Once upon a time, an idiot said a stupid thing. Some people thought it was funny on Rationalwiki and began saying it all the time." If the value of this article isn't informative, then it's humor... and if it's humor, why isn't it in funspace? Is CP-space really just funspace that's allowed to get away with more stupid things because it shits on our favorite dead horse punching bag? If we wanted to write more meta-articles on RW culture, you may as well just bring back RWW. Else, keep RWW off of RW. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 16:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

People like you just can't let others be, can they? It's just like gay marriage: even if it doesn't affect you in any conceivable way, you want to take it away from everyone. When did you become such a homophobic bigot with respect to conservapedia?? And how much longer are we as a community going to stand for your intolerance? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. The largely defensive weapon of gun is most important article of wiki. Icewedge (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Defensive Weapon of Gun is one of the funniest things I ever read on CP, and that is saying something. I would hope to keep this page. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 19:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fun-o-lise, anyone?

Forgive me, I know nothing about Conservapaedia other than it was founded by Andrew Schlafly, who has got into an argument with Richard Lenski and has this "weapon of gun" meme. From my rudimentary knowledge uninformed opinion, I'm just suggesting we move it to funspace, or else {`{mothball}} it or something. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Because CP space is distinct from fun space. Anyway, I am not sure why this rush to delete CP articles (apart from 'because it upsets Ty') but if it doesn't come up in random page then what is the problem? RW has an institutional history as well as it current missions and it'd be sad to see that disappear. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why move to funspace? CPspace has its own unwritten rule that articles can be fun or serious. Sophie^Wilder 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't like the delete tag...

This isn't in mainspace, hitting "random page" won't take anyone here, it has historical value, so I think we should just mothball it and let it rest in peace. Anyone for a closing vote?

Keep

1. If this comes to pass, I'll mothball it if it's OK. It's a part of RW history. File:Planarian Latin.pngI like planaria, but I don't speak Latin 05:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"Weapon of gun"

That sounds like something from Borat. Landmartian (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is nice! 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Weapon of Gun???

Who in the devil came up with that weird title "Weapon of Gun"??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

None other than the great Schlafly. Look at the first ref. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Holy flying fuck, how can he write such weird shit in his own native language?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

He's the great Schafly, that's how. He defies logic. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

In most cases, he defies brain-usage!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You dare profane the holy Schafly? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Caltrops, morningstars and crossbows are effective and more green. (You can reuse your opponents' arrows/bolts, but not their bullets.) And ballistas for sieges. 31.49.115.185 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Teh Assfly defies all logic, and it is not at all uncommon for him to make masterful grammatical errors like the “Largely Defensive Weapon Of Gun” and “The Trusworthy Encyclopedia”. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 17:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not 'weapon of marbles' - more decorative, less likely to be legislated against, and equally inviting of pseudo-Freudian jokes (eg asking if you have lost your marbles). Anna Livia (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)