So Sad - Wounded Warrior Project is Anti-Gun

[Greybeard]

Need to read the entire article.


“I am a wounded warrior being medically retired in December,” veteran Marc Toomey told the organization. “It was brought to my attention from associates and friends that your organization pretty much told ‘Gun Talk Radio’ to take a flying leap (tactfully) when they offered the WWP the opportunity for public exposure. I listen to the program and the biggest thing promote is gun safety and core family values. Many veterans have contributed to the contents broadcasted or published. They also promote veterans who are in need of help to seek it out and provide points of contact to do so.”

Such sentiments continue to be posted, with several more added while this article was being written, and that’s essentially through people learning through the grapevine. If and when more gun owners become aware of the sentiments of some in the WWP leadership, it could end up damaging the organization and hurting those who deserve our help.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wounded ... g-gun-talk

[donut]

I think this another one that when you label something anti-gun you're not helping the situation nor is it constructive. If WWP doesn't want to go on to a national firearms related talk show that's their call. But when you have people going around slapping the anti-gun label on everything they perceive as some kind of insult or let down it creates a problem much worse as you can see in the interview. It's not much different than they black guy running around calling everyone racist who doesn't care for his nonsense.

So let me get this straight folks are going to deny their charitable donations to a wounded soldiers program because of a interview on a gun talk show? Wow. Talk about being pathetic, talk about having a one track mind. I'm not saying you have to donate for any reason whatsoever but then you're not going to over some PR involving a gun talk show? Never mind that the money goes to people who could use it or benefit from the services it provides. They don't go on gun program interviews so screw them? Look at the bottom half of the interview. Hey if that's how folks feel they can just keep their money, but don't go around dragging a organization's name in the mud while dangling a donation out there that they "were" going to make. That's pretty damn shallow as if they had no other rationale to donate. Not out of service, not to make someones life easier, nor patriotism. It's just about being pro gun or anti-gun. Sad.

[ShotgunBlast]

So let me get this straight folks are going to deny their charitable donations to a wounded soldiers program because of a interview on a gun talk show? Wow. Talk about being pathetic, talk about having a one track mind. I'm not saying you have to donate for any reason whatsoever but then you're not going to over some PR involving a gun talk show? Never mind that the money goes to people who could use it or benefit from the services it provides. They don't go on gun program interviews so screw them? Look at the bottom half of the interview. Hey if that's how folks feel they can just keep their money, but don't go around dragging a organization's name in the mud while dangling a donation out there that they "were" going to make. That's pretty damn shallow as if they had no other rationale to donate. Not out of service, not to make someones life easier, nor patriotism. It's just about being pro gun or anti-gun. Sad.

Quite simply, yes. But we do this all the time, whether it's eating at a chicken sandwich shop because they share our beliefs on the family unit, a retail store because they have a "Merry Christmas" sign in the storefront instead of a generic "Happy Holidays" sign, or even charitable organizations that are either into the same things we are or not.

Now, I'm not saying WWP is pro or anti gun (the CEO did go on the talk show that weekend). I can see why they would be conflicted about going on the show since the people they help have been injured (most likely by guns or explosive devices) so I guess maybe it would seem weird to be on a gun show. I don't understand why they just had an event at the Playboy Mansion when that seems to be the complete opposite of their position.

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

I'm surprised they would even have a position like this since charitable dollars are harder to come by these days and would be happy to get the dollars in wherever possible.

[vaeevictiss]

I think more than anything they we're simply trying to stay neutral. This would keep them on speaking terms if you will with both sides. They could be either super anti or extremely pro, but you really can't tell which by declining an interview.

When you have an organization dedicated to helping wounded service members they want all the help they can get and it would be best to stay on top of the political fence. It's just being diplomatic.

It's one thing when a company won't have the balls to take one side or another but this organization is fully dedicated to helping others, and if you research them, they have been very effective and help countless vets and their families.

As a gun loving veteran , I fully support their decision. Their organization has nothing to do with firearms so why bring it into it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[zerodown1]

I do and will continue to support the WWP regardless of the leaderships position on guns. These men and women did their job and left body parts on the battlefield and we owe them a debt of gratitude, and knowing how the government will treat them, they need and deserve our help. I'm willing to bet no one asked them if they were pro gun when they were sent into harms way. I don't donate to the fund because the leadership is pro gun or anti gun. I donate because they bled for me and risked their life doing a job most would not. Pro gun, anti gun, be damned in this case.

[sboyajian]

This doesn't surprise me, they have a very odd stance on accepting funds or even marketing. I designed a board game, Delta Recon, I wanted to give the profit to Wounded Warrior. They declined my offer.

[Rualert]

Seems really strange to me, as I have seen many a fire arm, air gun, ect being auctioned off to benefit the WWP. So why would someone actually cal them anti?

Casey

[dorminWS]

The way I see it, whoever it was with WWP that took the "anti-gun" stance in the first place was probably projecting their own prejudices onto the organization; and in so doing did it a great disservice.

Somebody raised enough hell about it to call their bluff, and that's a GOOD thing. But it should not discourage support of such a worthy cause.

Whoever made that blunder to begin with should be invited to find some other cause to support; or at the very least be told to STFU.

[SgtBill]

The way I see it, whoever it was with WWP that took the "anti-gun" stance in the first place was probably projecting their own prejudices onto the organization; and in so doing did it a great disservice.

Somebody raised enough hell about it to call their bluff, and that's a GOOD thing. But it should not discourage support of such a worthy cause.

Whoever made that blunder to begin with should be invited to find some other cause to support; or at the very least be told to STFU.

I agree 100 percent with you.
Bill H.

[j1mmyd]

I think this warrants a bump: https://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk ... 4082553313

They do great work, but they aren't the only ones helping veterans...

[gunderwood]

I think this warrants a bump: https://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk ... 4082553313

They do great work, but they aren't the only ones helping veterans...

From the link:

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

Interesting that they had a WWP fund raiser at the Playboy mansion which I'm pretty sure violates the sexual clause.

Just the usual PC double talk and hypocrisy. I bet they figure that most gun owners will donate anyways, but accepting the Gun-Talk interview will be a problem for the anti-gunners/mostly Democrats.

Quite simply, yes. But we do this all the time, whether it's eating at a chicken sandwich shop because they share our beliefs on the family unit, a retail store because they have a "Merry Christmas" sign in the storefront instead of a generic "Happy Holidays" sign, or even charitable organizations that are either into the same things we are or not.

+1

Don't like something, don't buy it. A simple concept so many people just don't understand.

[Reverenddel]

Exactly.

If proven that they're anti-gun... I simply won't support them. Same as I won't go to Darden Restaurants, visit anti-gun states, or put my time, and efforts into an organization that doesn't suport 2A rights.

(shrugs) My choice.

[donut]

I find it amazing that you won't visit a state just because its "anti-gun". I mean what a crappy reason never to see Hawaii, California, Boston, the Statue of Liberty, the Smithsonian... But hey that's your choice. I just think that if I lived that way I would later regret that I didn't see more of my own country much less the world because I was so wrapped up about guns. I lived in the Middle East for years, that whole time my pistol went into storage. I forgot I owned the damn thing by time I came home. If I had passed up the chance to see the Pyramids over a stupid gun I would have regretted it for the rest of my life.

More so, this pro-anti gun thing about the WWP. Stupid choice but it's still yours. I just find it amazing that someone would withhold a charitable donation on the basis of guns. If the organization is "anti-gun" which is a term I think gets thrown around a lot for no reason, does it really matter as long as the funds go to a good and worthwhile cause? I could understand a for profit business. But it's a non-profit! A good portion of the money gets disbursed to people that put it to good use. But, again to some people it does, as if they needed a excuse or something. Your money, your choice, I just wouldn't go around telling my friends about it.

[Stratojaxter]

I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents (is this tax deductible?). I support WWP because I believe in their cause, which has nothing to do with anything except helping wounded troops get as close to whole as they can. I don't care if they do or do not want to be associated with any other cause. Now if they were actively pushing an agenda I strongly disagreed with, it would be a different story, but I don't see that being the case. They don't make the troops sign a pledge to not own a gun before they decide to help. They don't run ads supporting bans on any weapons, or high cap mags. Their cause is beyond various political issues. The troops are too important, and I'm glad they are looking at the big picture. Right now, gun rights is a polarizing topic, and many on the opposite side of the gun debate support our troops. Someone probably thought it might be a good idea to steer clear to avoid looking like they were taking a political stand on the subject. And what do they get for putting our troops above politics? Someone decides to make it political and bash them for it. I guess if they would have turned down a similar promotion from LOGO television, somewhere there would have been posts that "WWP hates fags".

[gunderwood]

I find it amazing that you won't visit a state just because its "anti-gun".

I minimize my activities in such states. I'll go, but I evaluate the risk vs. return. If something were to happen, I'd be unarmed and have to live with the consequences of intentionally going to a place where SD has been practically outlawed. Even though I live in NOVA, I rarely go to MD or spend any money there because it's just not worth the hassle. Besides, there really isn't anything in MD that I can't get in VA.

I lived in the Middle East for years, that whole time my pistol went into storage. I forgot I owned the damn thing by time I came home.

People value different things. Obviously if you "forgot you owned it," it wasn't very valuable to you. No problem, that's your business. However, thinking everyone values things like you do is terribly flawed. For some people, putting on a firearm for CC/OC is like putting on a watch or pair of glasses; and they use them nearly every day. It's a way of life and that's what the anti-gunners don't get, they're attacking a culture, not an inanimate object.

More so, this pro-anti gun thing about the WWP. Stupid choice but it's still yours. I just find it amazing that someone would withhold a charitable donation on the basis of guns. If the organization is "anti-gun" which is a term I think gets thrown around a lot for no reason, does it really matter as long as the funds go to a good and worthwhile cause? I could understand a for profit business. But it's a non-profit! A good portion of the money gets disbursed to people that put it to good use. But, again to some people it does, as if they needed a excuse or something. Your money, your choice, I just wouldn't go around telling my friends about it.

Again, it's a cultural thing. Not all gun owners are part of or understand gun culture. The same is true for many such sub-cultures. e.g. cars, farming, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but mere ownership of an inanimate object doesn't qualify anyone about the sub-culture. e.g. Feinstein may buy a gun, but that wouldn't make her part of the gun culture. Gabby's husband tried some stunt like that; lots of anti-gunners do too. "I own guns, but..."

While the WWP is non-profit, the people on the board who make these anti-gun decisions, are making a nice salary off the gig. Perhaps they shouldn't be...let Donald do the honors.

[gunderwood]

I don't care if they do or do not want to be associated with any other cause.

They were not asked to take a position nor to associate their cause with the program. By going on the show they wouldn't have been saying guns are good or bad. They'd merely be asking an audience to send donations. Apparently they understand that distinction when it comes to sex (also disqualified) as they still held the a fund raiser at the Playboy mansion.

Now if they were actively pushing an agenda I strongly disagreed with, it would be a different story, but I don't see that being the case. They don't make the troops sign a pledge to not own a gun before they decide to help. They don't run ads supporting bans on any weapons, or high cap mags. Their cause is beyond various political issues.

Yet, they politicize their own organization by accepting some donations from certain people associated with causes, but not others. They're asking for donations, not advertising a product (guns, alcohol, sex, etc.) to the troops in the program.

The troops are too important, and I'm glad they are looking at the big picture. Right now, gun rights is a polarizing topic, and many on the opposite side of the gun debate support our troops. Someone probably thought it might be a good idea to steer clear to avoid looking like they were taking a political stand on the subject. And what do they get for putting our troops above politics? Someone decides to make it political and bash them for it. I guess if they would have turned down a similar promotion from LOGO television, somewhere there would have been posts that "WWP hates fags".

Interesting. So they are doing the right thing by not upsetting the anti-gunners/Democrats because according to you if WWP went on the show, the anti-gunners/Democrats would do exactly what your blasting everyone here for doing?

[Stratojaxter]

My comments in red

I don't care if they do or do not want to be associated with any other cause.

They were not asked to take a position nor to associate their cause with the program. By going on the show they wouldn't have been saying guns are good or bad. They'd merely be asking an audience to send donations. Apparently they understand that distinction when it comes to sex (also disqualified) as they still held the a fund raiser at the Playboy mansion.

So going on the show would not make them look like they are taking a side, but not going on the show does. Also, the Playboy fundraiser stirred up quite a bit of controversy. It apparently pissed you off since you are still bringing it up 4 years later. Why would they risk another controversy?

Now if they were actively pushing an agenda I strongly disagreed with, it would be a different story, but I don't see that being the case. They don't make the troops sign a pledge to not own a gun before they decide to help. They don't run ads supporting bans on any weapons, or high cap mags. Their cause is beyond various political issues.

Yet, they politicize their own organization by accepting some donations from certain people associated with causes, but not others. They're asking for donations, not advertising a product (guns, alcohol, sex, etc.) to the troops in the program.

They didn't turn down a donation from anyone. They turned down a media event on a radio station that deals with guns. Again, I don't understand why you think appearing on a show does not show support either way, but not appearing is a direct anti-gun stance. Sounds hypocritical to me.

The troops are too important, and I'm glad they are looking at the big picture. Right now, gun rights is a polarizing topic, and many on the opposite side of the gun debate support our troops. Someone probably thought it might be a good idea to steer clear to avoid looking like they were taking a political stand on the subject. And what do they get for putting our troops above politics? Someone decides to make it political and bash them for it. I guess if they would have turned down a similar promotion from LOGO television, somewhere there would have been posts that "WWP hates fags".

Interesting. So they are doing the right thing by not upsetting the anti-gunners/Democrats because according to you if WWP went on the show, the anti-gunners/Democrats would do exactly what your blasting everyone here for doing?

Yes, I apparently over-estimated some people here. You can support or not support what you want. I know people who have been helped through WWP, and I will continue to put our troops above something this petty.

[GeneralG]

Who cares what their views are. As long as they are taking care of the vets like they say they are and not lieing like alot of other fund raiser organizations that take more for themselves then their cause. You cant force guns views on others just as you cannot force your religion on to others. We can do our best to spread the word about the positives but everyone has their own opinion. We have to stick together, take care of our people and vets, and push forward. It is a good thing to be aware of others opinions but rubbing an organizations name in the dirt becasue they dont share the same views takes us off track on what we really need to be focused on, our Freedoms.