Wounded Warrior Project - antifirearms

[mrdeegs]

Should have pressed Leslie harder on why no gun radio show, but a booth at SHOT is ok? It's the biggest gun show in the country, afaik. Can't do one and then claim the don't like to link to guns, unless they just changed positions

But yea, lots of charities aren't as on the up and up as you would think. My mom, when dying of cancer, said one thing she didn't want was donations to the American cancer society. I never pressed why, but her alternate was to donate funds to my and my sisters high schools for scholarships for those in need.

In general, I dont donate a lot to charities because of so much shadiness. I used to donate (more time than money) to my local special Olympics. But I was involved, so I had a vested interest (not that anyone cared)

Very surprised tho...

[ccgmedic]

Clearly the Face book page is ther attempt to save face. It does not address directly their suicide = guns belief.

Very poorly done yet again!!!

I will not donate to them ever!!!!!!!!

- Chris

[hawk55732]

Originally Posted by ccgmedic

Clearly the Face book page is ther attempt to save face. It does not address directly their suicide = guns belief.

Very poorly done yet again!!!

I will not donate to them ever!!!!!!!!

- Chris

Heres my thought on this. Lets say that they were agianst guns at one point before this. However, after this they have changed there views. Doesnt that just go to show that public pressure is a good thing.

[wtr100]

Do as you'd like but from the reading of it they clearly don't want to be involved with one of the most respected outdoor journalists around, son of the late Gritts Gresham.

I'm not the shapest knife in the drawer but seems clear to me

Originally Posted by gbm75

OP - A question mark in the title of this thread seems appropriate. I did not discern from the email exchanges that WWP is in any way advocating nor actively promoting measures against firearms or 2nd Ammendment freedoms. It was noted, in fact, that WWP does provide theraputic services & rehabilitation activities involving the use of firearms. Range days & WWP sponsored hunting trips examples given. Activities obviously disporate with the anti gun lobby's philosophies by and large.

The aberrance in declining the invitation in this instance is not without precedent, and certainly not confined to the pro-gun aggregate. Also cited were religious institutions, political organizations and the alcoholic beverage industry. Whether it's marketing, or as the spokeswoman essentially stated, a differing philosophical opinion on guns doesn't matter much to me at this point.

Declining a guest invitation on a gun enthusiast radio program is not analagous to authoring, drafting, or sponsoring anti gun legislation, nor organizing, funding, promoting, and recruiting for anti gun movements. I have been a NRA member for many years, and in looking at this situation with complete objectivity, I see no hidden agenda nor malice toward gun owners.

Do not take this as a condescending or patronizing rant, that is in no way my intent. Most of us recognize the work the WWP does and the value of their efforts to those our nation treasures most. My personal conclusion is that it would be an utterly regrettable, even contemptible disservice for those vets most deserving of WWP's efforts to find their benefits and treatments fall short from a decrease in capital based on donors decisions founded on an ideological bias, that taken within context and full disclosure of the situation, perhaps lacked complete merit.

Until such time as I am proven wrong through veritable actions to the contrary, I will continue to support WWP, and urge others who give or those that would potentially give, to scrutinize this instance thoroughly and draw their own conclusions.

[gbm75]

Originally Posted by wtr100

Do as you'd like but from the reading of it they clearly don't want to be involved with one of the most respected outdoor journalists around, son of the late Gritts Gresham.

I'm not the shapest knife in the drawer but seems clear to me

I'd refer yout to the last sentence in the second paragraph, & the third paragraph in it's entirety, and the closing sentence as a basis for my conclusion.

[wtr100]

Originally Posted by gbm75

I'd refer yout to the last sentence in the second paragraph, & the third paragraph in it's entirety as a basis for my conclusion.

again do as ya like, I'm not the shapest guy around but I do know shyte from shinola - and I recognize weasle words when I see them

http://www.examiner.com/article/woun...bbing-gun-talk

[gbm75]

Originally Posted by wtr100

again do as ya like, I'm not the shapest guy around but I do know shyte from shinola - and I recognize weasle words when I see them

http://www.examiner.com/article/woun...bbing-gun-talk

To what are you referencing 'weasel words'?

[wtr100]

Originally Posted by gbm75

To what are you referencing 'weasel words'?

>>>Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues

That's about as retarded as it gets.

oh and I'll just leave this here from an e-mail I got from these folks

If you are a member of our Advance Guard Monthly Giving Program with an account change or update or if you have a donation question or want to support WWP through a one-time or monthly donation please call 1.855.GIVE.WWP (448.3997).

[Mjbarb]

Semper Fi Fund has been our choice and will continue to be. Sadly many of these NPO Charities forget why they exist...and then 50% of all the money donated goes to overhead (see salaries)

[gbm75]

Originally Posted by wtr100

>>>Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues

That's about as retarded as it gets.

I am in complete agreement.

This is akin, the right's equivalent, to people on the left citing birth control and manufacturing a 'war on women' in a campaign against Mitt Romney. Their opinion doesn't equate to them being complicit and engaged in pursuing gun control measures. Up to that point, it doesn't bother me one way or the other how they feel about guns.

[wtr100]

Originally Posted by gbm75

I am in complete agreement. It doesn't equate however to them being complicit in pursuing gun control measures. Up to that point, it doesn't bother me one way or the other how they feel about guns.

This is akin to people on the left citing birth control and manufacturing a 'war on women' in a campaign against Mitt Romney. This the equivalent on the right.

apples and oranges anyone?

[gbm75]

Originally Posted by wtr100

apples and oranges anyone?

Totally not apples to oranges if the basis for withdrawing support lies in their opinions over their actions. The premise of my original post.

[wtr100]

Originally Posted by gbm75

Totally not apples to oranges if the basis for withdrawing support lies in their opinions over their actions. The premise of my original post.

again not the sharpest tool but seems like apples and oranges to me -

[gbm75]

Originally Posted by wtr100

again not the sharpest tool but seems like apples and oranges to me -

If that's your final analysis, I digress. We can agree to disagree. At least you drew your conclusion through a cognitive process and not a knee-jerk response as many are prone to doing. Also addressed with a subtler edge in my original post.

[PrepperCon]

Originally Posted by ccgmedic

Clearly the Face book page is ther attempt to save face. It does not address directly their suicide = guns belief.

Very poorly done yet again!!!

I will not donate to them ever!!!!!!!!

- Chris

They weren't asked to allow use of their logo, they were asked to come on a radio show and promote their own organization. Because the show is about guns, they refused. Logo's had nothing to do with it.

They are obfuscating their stand to make it something it is not.

And who here actually uses facebook anyway?

[SSshane69]

Well after reading what I have, I have come to the conclusion that I'm no longer going to support the WWP. And another eye opener is just how much some people get paid from WWP. Now I knew they get paid, but didnt think it would be that well. I mean come on 319,000 for the CEO. Thats a little much dont you guys think.

[EODblake]

Another opertunity for those of you looking to donate to a diferent organization. http://woundedeodwarrior.org/ I've been to a few of their fundraisers and they have no problems with guns and booze...

[zatoichi]

As some of you other posters might well guess, I am not a huge advocate (nor do I oppose) gun rights. I believe the existing laws are fine and do not need more regulation.

That said, after thinking it though; this disinclination to affiliate with gun manufacturers and the related businesses bothers me. I look at this as whatever it takes to make the injured/disabled vets whole or getting closer to whole.

For a lot of them guns are an integral part of their lives. To suggest that they do without guns is pretty messed up.

[Learned One]

Just goes to show how good intentions can be pervereted. I like to think it's done unintentionally. The way society is turning makes things questionable.

[joes]

I am totally shocked by this...I have supported them since day 1...I hope their board of directors gets new members and a new pr person...I am just floored by this....Last summer at a range there were wounded warriors in wheel chairs shooting at the local range you should have seen their faces light up with smiles when they shot rifles again....
The WWP needs to do some very quick damage control on this.....