Wounded Warrior Project = Anti-Firearms Industry

Status
Not open for further replies.
MG, the show is on Sundays.

I listened to the interview with Steve Nardizzi, CEO at WWP, on Tom's Sunday show. You can listen via podcast, or download it to your computer and play the JPG audio.

http://www.guntalk.com/site41.php

Mr Nardizzi, is a lawyer. Now there's SOME good lawyers out there, but try to nail one down to get a clear statement from one. Like pinning a snake to a board in a straight line! . Mr Nardizzi is no different. I've seldom heard so much double talk and waste of breath like that. Tom G. repeatedly tried to get him to admit they're just plain anti-gun.

Bottom line is they won't co-brand with anything that they can't get a return on investment, ROI. Specifically, you couldn't use their logo on a gun or knife. It's mainly because of lawyers behind every bush, ready to sue if your logo is used and somebody gets hurt or doesn't like your involvement.

My bottom line is I'm going to block their access to my checking account, which is how they would get my monthly pledge.
 
I caught a few minutes ofthe CEO on Guntalk this past Sunday. I do believe Gresham scored some very good points.

I will let Tom chime in, if he is around.
 
A recording of the interview is here. You want the show from 11/18, part 1.

Gresham put Steve Nardizzi in a corner, but...no, wait. He didn't. Nardizzi did that to himself. He claims that the organization "obviously supports the 2nd Amendment" and cites their cross-promotions with hunting events.

However, he claims that WWP doesn't engage in "co-branding" with firearms manufacturers because there's a great deal of regulation on "cause-marketing opportunities," and that the return on investment isn't lucrative enough.

I'm not sure that's any less insulting.

Personally, I remain conflicted. Their policy is obviously and patently offensive.

However, I can't argue with the good work they do. I have friends who've benefited from their assistance. If I were to cease involvement with every company that didn't support the gun culture, I'd need to go through my house and throw a lot of things out.
 
Two words: Fisher House.

No, I don't work for them, but they help bring family members to our wounded warriors. If I was "all blowed up," I'd want family to keep me going.

God bless them.
 
Interesting it sounds like political correctness run rampant
Click to expand...

I agree, it seems nonsensical to not support the Wounded Warriors Project because the organization doesn't want to be associated with whatever your political persuasion is.
Lets be clear, guns are highly political. Many if not most posters on this site make political decisions based solely on firearms issues. That alone would be reason enough, for an organization that wanted to be non-partisan, to avoid association with firearms.

One poster belittled the notion that the association between returning soldiers and firearms. I'd like to point out that very few American vets are Japanese citizens.
The suicide rates amongst vets is a national tragedy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...ic-in-Army-July-was-worst-month-Pentagon-says
Michael Ecker, a 25-year-old Iraq war veteran, called out to his father from a leafy spot in their backyard. Then, as the two stood just steps apart, Michael saluted, raised a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

Veterans frequently do use firearms to commit suicide. I don't think it is out of order for WWP to want to stay away from associations with firearms on that account.

They don't want your money.
Click to expand...

That is just silly talk. There is a vast difference between accepting donations from an organization and giving you imprimatur to that same organization.

Charities that are aimed at helping gamblers or addicts accept money from casinos and alcohol producers, but they don't have links on their web sites to the Billagio or Budweiser.

I'd like to suggest that only reason to support or not support a charity whose mission you agree with, is how well they fulfill their mission.
 
....but WWP is an important cause.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You're conflating an organization with the people it purports to serve.

If you believe that wounded warriors are an important cause - and they are - then there a number of other organizations that you can donate money or time to other than WWP.
 
If WWP was the only charity, or even the best, that does what they do, I could understand contributing.

They're not the only or the best. Even without the gun issue, why contribute?

I see no controversy around The Fisher House, they have an A rating every place I've checked and they report 4% administrative costs.

Just the difference between WWPs approximately 15% and Fisher House's 4% would change my donation.
 
While I do not agree, I do understand their position. I have seen too many of my brothers and sisters return after substantial injuries and want nothing to do with a weapon ever again. I understand this feeling, and will support them no matter how they feel about weapons. I do not agree with the charity's stance on accepting donations from firearm manufacturers. I would understand if they would not endorse them, but that is a different story. Basically, Wounded Warriors really does help with some of these soldiers, as long as they do, I will continue to donate to them. My support of these soldiers is more important than my views on how I think the charity should run their business. I am not trying to make anyone mad or stir the pot, but had seen too many of my service brothers and sisters, belittled and ignored when they returned. So my main thing is, no matter how they align themselves with religion or firearms, if they help these soldiers, they will have my support. They are not marching against firearm makers, they just do not want their support. While that is a poor move financially, it is the charity's ultimate decision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not donate to wounded warrior or any of the numerous organizations, which have become fashionable, allegedly supporting these brave men and women.

Instead I donate my time by assisting individual Veterans who are in need of help. Currently, I am assisting 2 veterans in obtaining their benefits. We are preparing to bring a homeless Vietnam Vet on to our place as a care taker.

When I meet a Vet I talk with them. I identify their needs, if any, and assist them by giving them a ride or a hot meal.

Most of the guys I meet need someone to listen who understands their situation.

I had the opportunity to spend time with one of the top Marine Snipers from Vietnam. He was suffering from PTSD and did not trust the system. Through our talks I was able get him speak with a DVA counselor who got him into the system. He is now getting help and benefits which allows him to live with dignity. The reason I was able to get through to him was, as he stated, "you never asked the question."

The question was "what is your body count". So for goodness sake, when you talk with these guys don't ask them what their body count is. Their number is very personal and they will speak of it when they trust you.

NOTE: The guys who brag about their count are generally pikers.
 
If WWP was the only charity, or even the best, that does what they do, I could understand contributing.

They're not the only or the best. Even without the gun issue, why contribute?

I see no controversy around The Fisher House, they have an A rating every place I've checked and they report 4% administrative costs.

Just the difference between WWPs approximately 15% and Fisher House's 4% would change my donation.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that if you prefer one charity over the other then go with the one you like. But Fisher House has a different mission than does the Wounded Warrior Project.
http://www.fisherhouse.org/
Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.
Click to expand...
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/mission.aspx
To raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of injured service members.
To help injured service members aid and assist each other.
To provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members.
Click to expand...

Fisher supplies a valuable service but it is a single static mission. WWP has a more dynamic open ended mission. I'd suggest that the difference in administrative cost has more to do with the type of mission than assuming that WWP is run by feckless grifters.

So yes there are many worthy charities that serve the veteran community, but they are not interchangeable. If you support the mission of the WWP but don't like the organization, then find an organization with a similar mission.

In the end though private charities dealing with veteran's issues are a bandage on a hemorrhage. We should be demanding that the VA should cover the damages caused by sending young women and men into harms way.
Veterans shouldn't be pawns in political games as this thread shows.
 
Right you are, but I don't worry much about specific missions.

I don't have funds to give to them all so there's always many, many worthwhile causes that go unfunded by me. In fact, my charitable donations are restricted to my church and affiliated organizations so I really have no dog in this particular fight, beyond the logic of it.

WWP and organizations like it will go on, with or without me, so if I were contributing to one that made me mad, I'd just pick another. If I'm giving to WWP, some other organization is missing my funds. If I give to that one, some other is missing them.

As long as they're good, it doesn't much matter which one you pick.
 
My wife and I have made significant donations to WWP the past three years. It has been one of our two chosen charities to which we make donations. The Salvation Army is the other charity.

However, after reading the comments posted here and in other gun forums, we have jointly decided that we will no longer support WWP. There are a number of equally good organizations out there who do just as much good for our wounded veterans, and we will make a selection of another charity for our year-end charitable donation.
 
This is a tough issue. They do a lot of good. But I don't donate to them. I am a life mamber of the DAV and active in local veteran groups. I am a retired counselor with a depth in counseling combat vets in trauma and substance abuse and recovery. What the WWP does is good stuff; but it comes at a price for me. They use their (somewhat liberal) bully pulpit to do tacit ill to a fundamental right of veterans and Americans in general.

I do not think I can support them as broadly as I would like to but I am not sure my opinion would be more than damning them with faint praise at this point...

I find a lot to agree with in ltc444's post. It has been my experience working with vets who wand to talk "but not to somebody who wasn't there..." It is a good point to identify myself as another vet with PTSD, substance abuse, and degrees and licenses on the wall who is service connected. And have walked through the system a bit.
 
Last edited:
Identifying one's self as pro-gun immediately implies an alliance with the NRA in the minds of almost everyone who gets that news. Along with the NRA comes some far-right politicians who bring all their politics along, most of which have zilch to do with gun rights. This defines the NRA as an advocate of all of Conservative and far-right politics including those well beyond just gun rights. While the NRA has done a lot to protect and support our rights, it has tainted its message and thus tainted open support for gun rights in general with this unnecessary and unfortunate alliance with politics and perspectives that unnecessarily limit its appeal, and which an increasing number of citizens are abandoning.

In short, it is impossible to speak in favor of gun rights or even to identify positively with guns in general without simultaneously and unavoidably associating one's self with all of Conservative and further right wing politics and perspectives, an unavoidable marriage created by the NRA, one that thanks to the NRA's powerful voice and visibility doesn't need mention of the NRA to have effect. I don't blame WWP for avoiding that, its agenda has nothing to do with the politics of guns or is it limited to the politics or perspectives of the right that openly and positively attaching itself to guns would imply. This earns them my support, since their mission is one I believe in, and it's clearly the totality of what they are about.

This and other indications of the evolution of attitudes toward the positive aspects of gun ownership and use (self protection, the healthy and philosophically consistent aspects of hunting one's meat, for examples) are growing beyond the out-of-date assumption that being pro-gun is identical with having pro-right or pro-Conservative perspectives.
 
Much of the perceived association between the NRA and far-right causes isn't the NRA's fault, but that of folks who create an inaccurate perception.

Many NRA members expect the organization to promote causes that have nothing to do with its primary mission, and they get huffy when the NRA doesn't get involved.

That said, you're right in that the perception is still there, and the NRA could do more to distance themselves from it.
 
If it's an inaccurate perception, the NRA has propagated it, the list of who's invited to be key speakers and the sponsored events at the annual conventions are definitely the choices of a right-wing organization. Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and Evangelical prayer breakfasts (for example) aren't likely to be sponsored by an organization in the middle, and anyone who reads the news gets enough snippets of such choices to come to a legit conclusion on where the NRA stands. The most powerful place to stand on gun rights is to not stand anywhere but on gun rights issues, but that's not been the NRA's politics. So it isn't an inaccurate perception that the NRA is a right-wing, radical right-wing even, organization. They endorse politicians in accordance with just their position on gun rights, but that's not as widely known as the public identity they create for themselves which clearly identifies them with Conservative politics and perspectives, most of which are well beyond gun rights and have no impact on them.

The annual convention is clearly meant only to be a money maker for the NRA, so it's constructed to appeal to Conservative Evangelicals, but the identity it tacks on the NRA has increasingly cost the NRA members, and worse as limited the number of those who would champion gun rights to those who also embrace the totality of Conservative politics. That excludes an increasing number of people who are Liberals and so won't join an effort that requires them to be (or identifies them as) supporters of other non-gun-related political issues they abhor, strongly enough to stay silent. What a voice we would have on gun rights if it came from the panorama of political perspectives instead of just a narrowly defined, increasingly unpopular corner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top