1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wounded Warriors Project doesn't deal with companies involved with Firearms?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by firstater, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member


    Might be because they don't need it. They get a lot of coverage from media already.

    Also, they're not pro-gun. They're pro wounded service member.
    Just like THR, they have one issue to focus on and they don't divert from it.

    They also probably don't have anything to do with "gun exchanges" (raffles, give aways, etc.) for the same reason we don't (and we're certainly pro-gun around here).
  2. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    I saw a tweet from Tom Gresham last week and started looking into this. I emailed them and sen them a message on facebook. I only received an automated response.

    Tom Gresham actually spoke at some length about this on his national radio show yesterday too. He said they will take money from anyone.. but they will not partner with or appear to in any way to associate with firearm companies or firearms media. Apparently, firearm people and companies are undesirable and they don't want to be portrayed as political.

    Of course in their attempt to "not be political" they are anything but by showing obvious bigotry towards those who are firm believers in the protection of one of our most basic fundamental civil rights. They are in effect taking a anti-civil rights position.

    I am sure they have done and will continue to do some very very fine things for our wounded veterans and I applaud them for that. However, just like if they were to not accept partnerships to help from pro first amendment organizations or other pro civil rights organizations, I find their stand offensive.

    I certainly will no longer be giving any money to them. There are plenty of other less bigoted organizations out there to help our wounded veterans.
    HAVA or Honored American Veterans Afield, for example.
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    It isn't their cause.

    The world isn't divided into pro and anti gun and if we act like it is we appear to be fanatics, and no one likes fanatics except other fanatics (on each end of the spectrum).

    I think by making this an issue, Gresham is hurting RKBA supporters by making us look like WE as a community are attacking WWP for not declaring for us. That is something that will turn people off and even some against us (Do ya think all the folks with wounded vets for friends and family will appreciate us hating on WWP?) especially on/around Veteran's Day.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
  4. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    It isn't their cause but by choosing to not associate or accept help publicly with firearms groups/media they are in effect taking a side... They are taking an anti civil rights position.

    They specifically state that firearms (and liquor) conflict with their "mind, body, spirit" approach. They are absolutely free to take this bigoted position but others (like me) are absolutely free to chose to support other groups that will not be so bigoted.

    I do not lump firearms in with liquor lol
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
  5. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    I wonder if people would also feel it was not a big deal if they said they would not publicly accept help from groups/companies/media because those groups were promoting free speech or anti-segregation.
  6. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Well-Known Member

    sounds like a Zumbo moment coming on....

    the attitudes expressed by The WWP certainly sound like bigoted anti rhetoric to my ears.

    too bad... it will only make pro 2A guys look like they are anti-vet.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  7. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    That would depend on your perspective. Not all wounded warrior folks are pro gun.
  8. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    But do they have to be anti gun?
  9. basicblur

    basicblur Well-Known Member

    Yes it does!

    Wait...a Zumbo moment for whom? :confused:
  10. vito

    vito Well-Known Member

    Not to sound petty, but after being a sponsor for the Wounded Warrior Project for a few years, meaning I have sent them at least several hundred dollars, I would hope that they are not really some anti-gun, i.e., anti-2nd Amendment organization. Years ago when Sturm Ruger excluded medical coverage for its employees if they suffered a motorcycle accident I vowed to stop buying any Ruger product. When they reversed their position on this medical insurance exclusion, under great pressure from the Americam Motorcyclist Association and riders in general, I again became a customer for them. I'm sure many wounded veterans enjoy hunting, and/or value the owning of a firearm for personal and family protection, and if the WWP treated guns in general negatively I would have to reconsider my ongoing support to that particular organization. BTW, I bet more wounded servicemen and women were wounded/disabled by IED's than by guns.
  11. Kingofthehill

    Kingofthehill Well-Known Member

    Heard this at HAVA last weekend and just heard about it this morning on the Tom Gresham podcast.

    I am totally blown away and researching it for my own peace of mind but i have pulled my donations that were on an automatically monthly donation cycle. Also sent them an Email along with WHY i have pulled my donations and will not return until they repeal their decision to associate with firearms related companies.

    Simply unreal how they are against probably their largest sector of donations! The Firearms world. I thought Khar arms donated something like $50,000 a month ago or something? How dare they just keep accepting the money without being "Associated" with us?

  12. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Well-Known Member

    So, if an organization wants to remain apolitical in order to advance its apolitical cause, it's automatically supporting the other side of the issue.

    This is all about supporting the Wounded Vets, not about who likes guns or not. Not to mention, they accept all sorts of firearms-related activities already for those WOUNDED VETS.

    It's all about supporting an organization that supports WOUNDED VETS, people that have sacrificed for a greater cause than themselves. It's not about using that support or those WOUNDED VETS to further a political stance.

    I'm pro-2A, pro-Bill of Rights for that matter, all the way. But I won't support an organization or company that places self-centered stipulations on allowing its support to those that have sacrificed of themselves.

    What I'm seeing from some of you is screw the organization, and in turn the WOUNDED VETS, for not openly giving you what you want from them.

    They chose to avoid getting typecast into a political stance. So what??

    If Mr. Gresham got his feathers ruffled, or his ego bruised, because they weren't chomping at the bit for his show, then he can go suck an egg.
  13. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    There's a critical difference between staying apolitical and simply refusing to have any connection with anything firearm-related. You can stay apolitical and still organize hunts, go on various talk shows and coordinate funding drives with gun makers or clubs.

    With their apparent position refusing to have anything to do with anything gun related, they are in fact taking a strong political position. When they justify this position by endorsing the anti-gun mantra that firearms lead to suicide, and indeed implying that wounded vets are DANGEROUS, then I think they've gone over the edge completely into partisan hackery.

    I hope that WWP changes its position on this. A simple google search shows that the outfit has had many contacts with guns in the past, which makes sense. If they think they're going to get a lot of support for the vets on the anti-gun left, I think they're nuts. And if they think there's major damage associating with us vermin, I'm afraid the damage has already been done!

    Last edited: Nov 12, 2012
  14. basicblur

    basicblur Well-Known Member

    Hmmmm....sounds like mebbe it isn't Mr. Gresham whose feathers are ruffled!

    I listen to his podcast every week - I think his stance (after being completely dumbfounded) was (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), that's fine...if you don't want to associate with me, message received and understood....
  15. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    WWP is not the only way to support wounded veterans. There are many ways and other organizations to support vets that do not take an anti-firearm position.
  16. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Well-Known Member

    As far as I've read, WWP refused the invite to Tom Gresham's show, not to anything else you've listed regarding hunts and such. And the only source i've seen as to what they said is Twitter:

    That's hardly taking an anti-gun stance.

    I agree but then again, those with whom you keep company with is how you're judged. I'm guessing that the libs donate as well and why offend them with a falsely assumed perception of being a right-wing pro-gun organization.

    Holy Shnikees!!...How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not seeing it. The only quote I've seen is Mr. Gresham's on Twitter. If you have more on that, I'd surely like to know. Those are serious implications against WWP and they would lose my support as well.

    Are you a firearm company? Or any form of media? If not, then you're entirely personalizing their choice to not go on a gun show. That's all they have turned down...a Gun-Related Media venue...they didn't turn you down.

    BTW, thanks for that link to the rifle. I like it. I'll have to look into that further.
  17. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Well-Known Member

    His feathers were ruffled otherwise he wouldn't have even bothered to mention that he had a guest request turned down. He tweeted it and spoke about it on his show. It smacks of "the nerve of them not wanting to associated with me." Typical media response.

    And yes, my feathers got ruffled too. Well, my one feather anyways...I'm not a big man in the gun business. But I do associate with gun related activities and visit gun stores often.

    I agree but I'm must be missing something here. Where did this conclusion of an anti-firearm/anti-2A position come from??

    Let me in on it and I'll pull me CFC support for WWP as well.
  18. Tim the student

    Tim the student Well-Known Member

    I checked with my buddy about his experiences with WW.

    Turns out he goes to Perry with M1s For Vets (which is a great organization, IMO, and in his experiences).
  19. 25cschaefer

    25cschaefer Well-Known Member

    I have seen several WWP gun raffles in Montana; maybe it was just rouge fundraisers.
  20. jhvaughan2

    jhvaughan2 Well-Known Member

    Why is not supporting one side, considered supporting the other.
    We need not vilify those who are not "with us"
    We need to accept most people do not take a position in this "argument"

Share This Page