Wounded Warrior Project = Anti-Firearms Industry

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I do not totally agree with your characterization of the NRA there is no doubt the NRA could do a better job. As for the people they align with I think that has more to do with those individuals seeking to be aligned with the NRA than the other way around.

I do agree that the NRA does not always do a good job in the war of propaganda. The NRA should seek to cultivate relationships with like minded individuals at all positions in American life. For instance at one time Whooppi Goldberg was an NRA member, so if she still is what a spokesperson she could be. Also, I read where Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were gun owners and stated they would not hesitate to defend their family.

Yes, the NRA could do a better job, but truly they have already done a pretty good job. Now, not sure how this relates to WWP, but just piggybacking off your post.
 
Tom Gresham wrote an editorial for The Shooting Wire this week. You can find it at http://www.shootingwire.com/features/226802.

In part, it reads:

Having been in the gun rights fight since before the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, I've seen a lot of changes. For decades I've said this fight really is a struggle for public opinion. We have made great strides. Forty years ago a majority of the U.S. population thought that handguns should be severely restricted. That's not the case now. Through education and exposure the public recognize gun owners as "normal" people just like them. This is huge.

On the other hand, there is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world?

Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won't do business with the firearms industry.

Each of these is a very public way of saying "We don't do business with 'those people'." Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography.

Sure, the Wounded Warrior Project is only too happy to take our money. They "allow" shoots and hunts as fundraisers, but they don't want their logo associated with us. They are saying in a very public way that they refuse to be associated with us.
Click to expand...

Especially if you're inclined to think the story has been blown out of proportion, please go read the whole thing. It might give you some food for thought.

pax
 
Good point, Kathy. I also must agree that the NRA has strayed away from a clear focus on gun rights to a more political agenda. Inviting outliers like Glenn Beck doesn't help to convince anyone not of his persuasion that they are left-right neutral organization. As I said elsewhere, the GOP is coming to understand that a noninclusive party is not going to work.

One can disagree with this or that about conservative values but the debate as to be to nature of realistic policies. Pandering to media conservatives with their 'theories' and insults won't aid the RKBA cause.

Such a strategy may have short term financial benefits but doesn't help bring the theory of the RKBA to folks who don't want Beck or Hannity baggage.
 
Gresham's column typifies the attitudes that conservative perspectives have been criticized for: "If you aren't with us you are against us, and that diminishes your credibility and our respect for you." Said differently: "We are good; if you aren't clearly in support of us you are evil, there is no middle ground." There is compromise and negotiation possible between different ideas, but there is none with evil, which seeds disruptive and unnecessary polarizations when indifference is deemed a statement of opposition and so is not worthy of respect and instead warrants separation and disparagement.

The WWP apparently wishes to remain unheard and unaligned on guns and other polarizing, divisive topics that have nothing to do with WWP's mission. To a balanced perspective that seems reasonable, legit and ought to be good business. But the condemnation that earns, as expressed in Gresham's essay and the responses of others who will abandon WWP and disparage them for such official indifference to guns goes past just ignoring that indifference, which does no harm to anyone, and casts them as anti-gun simply because they aren't pro-gun. It costs the WWP the support of those who subscribe to the aforementioned attitude, one that when applied to a larger context contradicts one of the fundamental founding principles of this country- the freedom to be who one is as long as it harms no one else, and respect for those that have the same freedom but are different from us.
 
Self defense is a basic and fundamental human right. The right to own firearms and other weapons is protected within our Constitution because it is so basic to that fundamental right. To the extent that these basic rights are "controversial," they are controversial because we as gun owners have allowed them to become so.

My fundamental human rights are not for sale.

There are many, many other places to give charitably, to support injured veterans and other worthwhile causes. I don't need to line the pockets of an organization that pays its CEO hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and wants me and mine to sit at the back of their bus and shut up. I'll give to another organization instead. Why? Because the ideas you feed are the ones that grow!

I don't want to live in a society where my basic human rights are "controversial" in some way, so I won't reward that perspective by feeding it dollars I could spend or give elsewhere.

pax
 
Uncle Billy said:
Gresham's column typifies the attitudes that conservative perspectives have been criticized for: "If you aren't with us you are against us, and that diminishes your credibility and our respect for you." Said differently: "We are good; if you aren't clearly in support of us you are evil, there is no middle ground." There is compromise and negotiation possible between different ideas, but there is none with evil, which seeds disruptive and unnecessary polarizations when indifference is deemed a statement of opposition and so is not worthy of respect and instead warrants separation and disparagement.

The WWP apparently wishes to remain unheard and unaligned on guns and other polarizing, divisive topics that have nothing to do with WWP's mission. To a balanced perspective that seems reasonable, legit and ought to be good business. But the condemnation that earns, as expressed in Gresham's essay and the responses of others who will abandon WWP and disparage them for such official indifference to guns goes past just ignoring that indifference, which does no harm to anyone, and casts them as anti-gun simply because they aren't pro-gun. It costs the WWP the support of those who subscribe to the aforementioned attitude, one that when applied to a larger context contradicts one of the fundamental founding principles of this country- the freedom to be who one is as long as it harms no one else, and respect for those that have the same freedom but are different from us.
Click to expand...

Well said, Uncle Billy. Thank you.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't want to live in a society where my basic human rights are "controversial" in some way, so I won't reward that perspective by feeding it dollars I could spend or give elsewhere.
Click to expand...
My takeaway from the interview wasn't that WWP found 2A issues controversial: they just didn't consider us to be a profitable enough demographic.

Of course, that's no less offensive, really.
 
In Houston, the owner of a local gun shop went on a radio program praising efforts to eliminate Internet ammunition purchases. His motives were obvious. By sacking Internet ammo purchases, his sales improved.

Our Texas forum got wind of his position, posted the interview messages and before it was over, he had over 13,000 really ticked off Texans nipping at his heels. Later, a full retraction and clarification came out of it.

I will not support the WWP knowing that they have a knife plunged deeply in my back. It's a shame that the best and most deserving of our citizens need to suffer for WWP's Liberal nonsense.

I urge our members to look carefully into the mission statements of groups before you support them. I was interested in joining the "Gray Panthers", a militant senior citizens lobbying group. In the GP agenda, they state that gun ownership must be restricted or eliminated. I flushed them like a BM swirling down the toilet.

Flash
 
I have grave reservations about supporting an organization that is, essentially, becoming a for-profit charity, with more than a third of their income going for advertising, and a substantial amount going to pay lavish salaries for the founder and members of his family. :mad:

The best perspective I've seen in print on the Wounded Warrior controversy is the CTD Blog here: http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=32314
 
Tom Servo,

I don't buy that for a minute. Here's Tom Gresham's take on that, transcribed from the bonus podcast.

"[Nardizzi said] the reason we don't do that [allow gun-related companies to display our logo on fundraising efforts for WWP] with the gun companies is because of the 'return on investment' is not there. The ROI just isn't there. By the time we cover our costs, we just don't make enough money doing that.

"I said, 'Well, okay...' and then he jumped in and he said, 'Well, I'd love to do some things with bikes, cycling, because I'm a cyclist, but there's just not enough return there either.

"This led me to ask, 'Well, okay, so if it's all about the ROI, and you won't do cycling, then why isn't cycling listed on your website?' I don't see cycling mentioned anywhere, nothing says we won't do events, we won't co-brand, with cycling. But you specifically list firearms companies...

"So Steve Nardizzi is telling me it's all about the ROI, it's not that we don't like guns, so I said, 'If it's all about the ROI, then you would just turn it down because of that, but you wouldn't specifically list it on your website as, this is an untouchable area and these are people we will not be seen with. We can't co-brand with you people."

pax
 
Gary,

Thanks for posting the link to that excellent article. I hadn't seen it yet, and it was a good read.

pax
 
Ditto on that. It was very well said.

It is quite a shame. There have been events in San Antonio for the vets - the rationales are bogus.

I see quite a few in town, given our large military hospitals, and to interject such idiocy into supporting them is horrific. Soliders with artificial limbs, in wheel chairs with double amputations don't need such fair weather 'lawyerish' nonsense.
 
Who told Dave Dolbee that WWF was against the firearms industry? All the WWF said was that it didn't want to be associated with it, not that it was against it. The "Be with me as fervent as I am or be my enemy" syndrome, which he reaffirms with "…Quite honestly, I do not care if it takes money from the anti-gun crowd as well as the pro-gun groups. Apolitical is just fine with me. My priority is to help our wounded veterans any way I can, but I will not deal with those organizations bent on taking a stance firmly against organizations, groups or beliefs that I strongly relate with." That's a contradiction on its face since all the WWF wishes is to be apolitical (that is, non-aligned) on weapons issues.

What Steve Nardizzi had to say about "COI" might have this explanation: The money donated by arms related donors wouldn't cover the cost of the loss of donations from those who would not donate because of the WWP's endorsement of arms-related entities. Maybe someone did some market research and found this to be the case

What to guns have to do with helping wounded veterans, other than it's not impossible that the vet was wounded by one which might be a big discouragement for anyone who would make substantial donations to an organization that helps those veterans, an organization that's separate from arms-related entities. I'll bet there's a legion of people and organizations that are so persuaded.

People whose first priority is guns and is convinced that any who aren't as devoted to guns as they are is their enemy won't donate to WWP, but WWP is not their enemy, WWP doesn't have a dog in the gun-rights fight. Blaming them for that doesn't make a lot of sense.

P.S. If high-paid executives of donation-supported organizations are the cause of a heartburn, then don't look at what the NRA pays Wayne LaPierre, it'll give you ulcers.
 
I am wondering why some people at using the NRA to deflect from an issue that concerns the WWP?
WWP saying thy somehow do not contains with the firearm industry because of return on investment is bogus. As someone who does marketing research this makes no sense. Unless your motive of mission are political you take every opportunity in the world to reach out to an audience that met be interested in supporting you especially if they are a large audience.
WWP was invited to be a guest on Gun Talk a nationally syndicated show to talk about their program. They turned them down citing the "co branding issue"? Being a guest does not co brand your organization. This is absolute BS. thousands of organizations are involved in thousands of interviews on thousands of programs each year. They look at audience numbers and reach unless they have a political agenda. WWP was revealed as being anti gun then they tried to lie about it. I would have disagreed with them but respected them if they simply said our organization is anti gun, sorry, since our clients have all been injured by firearms or other weapons we thunk this is for the best. Bu they can't do that.
 
Uncle Billy said:
People whose first priority is guns and is convinced that any who aren't as devoted to guns as they are is their enemy won't donate to WWP, but WWP is not their enemy, WWP doesn't have a dog in the gun-rights fight. Blaming them for that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I can only think that you haven't followed this thread and/or read transcripts and statements from WWP.

Every issue you raise has been addressed in this thread and elsewhere. WWP is not neutral. They are Anti and they can't explain it away. Every attempt to "clarify" how not Anti they are has only clarified that they are Anti.
 
I've read all of what's posted here and all of the included links, and it seems to me that the WWP is considered to be "anti" only because they refuse to say they are "pro" by "co-branding" and allowing the use of their logo on weapons for sale. They haven't said anything that aligns them with the Brady Bunch, or Handgun Control, or endorsed any anti-gun legislation, or tried to limit CC rights, or anything else that would legitimately earn them the label of "anti". Any objective look at this says that they wish to be left out of the pro-anti gun debate, since their mission requires no interest in its results either way. It's the illogical, paranoid perspective that says that "if you aren't pro-gun you are anti gun" are the only possibilities which leaves out the most populated perspective - "we don't have an interest in either side of that argument, gun rights are not a part of our mission and so we take no definitive sides in it."

Their interest is in helping wounded veterans and not in gun issues. The WWF knows the error of unnecessarily limiting supporters with unrelated issues that don't bear on their mission and that's what they're pursuing, unlike the NRA that welds unrelated conservative politics and perspectives to gun control issues which thereby increasingly limits supporters of gun rights. And that's how the NRA came up here. Unfortunately the WWP will lose the support of pro-gun zealots who aren't committed to objectivity very much, but the WWP has factored that in to their decisions which is where "COI" comes in.
 
Last edited:
We can all put an individual spin on WWP's stand on firearms. I don't see them as anti just non-commital. Donate your money where you choose. Until someone shows me that an inordinate amount of the donations goes for administrative costs I will continue to support WWP.
 
I can't see how specifically excluding items is "wishing to be left out... of the debate."

If they wanted to be left out of the debate, they wouldn't have inserted themselves into it.

They also chose to include a product in with clearly morality based choices, sex companies, religious organizations and guns.

Taken with the refusal to agree, even in theory, that they would accept co-branding if the gun company completely covered ALL costs and I can't see how it could not be seen as Anti. Their (supposedly) only objection is nullified and they still can't answer the question?

Add in the nonsense in the original email, that frankly looked like it could have been written by the Brady Campaign.

I see no where else to go with it.
 
The hypocrisy of the WWP position is beyond comprehension. They won't have anything to do with firearms companies ... but they'll take their money.

I'm a veteran ... and I have just determined that I cannot support the WWP. There are other groups through which I can support my comrades in arms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top