Tom Gresham tweeted that Wounded Warriors turned down a spot on Gun Talk because they don't deal with companies involved with firearms. Doesn't the NRA work with the wounded warriors project? Anyone involved with this project on the forum please chime in. I'd like to know where they stand and if this is true what other groups are out there to help wounded veterans?
Wounded Warriors Project doesn't deal with companies involved with Firearms?
- Thread starter firstater
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about that, as they apparently sponsor hunts for Wounded Warriors.
http://www.stripes.com/news/wounded-warriors-honored-with-hunting-1.193087?localLinksEnabled=false
I wish they had had something like this when I came back from Vietnam.
Walter
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
The NRA does work with wounded warriors, but I don't immediately see where they are working with the Wounded Warrior Project, though they do work with Project Enduring Pride for wounded warriors.
StrutStopper
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 636
A friend at work is a wounded warrior. He was telling me about a pheasant hunt that he was just on sponsored by the program.
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
I donated $5 to Wounded Warriors at a gun show for a chance to win a S&W 500 Magnum being raffled off.
Cal-gun Fan
Member
I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen
The father of an NCO I served with hosts hunts for wounded warriors on his ranch. They get connected through WWP. This was as of early 2012, and I have no reason to doubt it.
We should determine what the policy is before deciding what to think about it. In some cases you're most certainly right. In others, the shooting sports can be an "anti-drug;" that is, a reason to get out of the house, something to put the focus into, a social event where veterans can be welcomed, etc.
We should determine what the policy is before deciding what to think about it. In some cases you're most certainly right. In others, the shooting sports can be an "anti-drug;" that is, a reason to get out of the house, something to put the focus into, a social event where veterans can be welcomed, etc.
timhernandez
Member
Something isn't ringing true here on some level.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/sto...22ccd2534ce/IN--Exchange-Wounded-Warrior-Hunt
http://www.therepublic.com/view/sto...22ccd2534ce/IN--Exchange-Wounded-Warrior-Hunt
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
You are right, Tim.
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/260855 $50k from Kahr.
The sole claim here is from Tom Gresham's tweet after they turned him down. I wonder if they didn't turn him down for some other reason.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Guntalk
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/260855 $50k from Kahr.
The sole claim here is from Tom Gresham's tweet after they turned him down. I wonder if they didn't turn him down for some other reason.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Guntalk
Tim the student
Member
I'm friends with a guy that got to go to Perry as part of a wounded vets program. I thought it was Wounded Warriors. I'm going to see him later today, I'll try to remember to ask him.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
We do WWP hunts on our ranch... so, uh...
ApacheCoTodd
member
'Bout the only thing I hold in less regard than "tweets" & FB postings as pertains to my forming an opinion are the repeating of unsupported tweets.
Now folk can go about saying in their gunshow authoritative way that they "heard" WW is antigun.
Now folk can go about saying in their gunshow authoritative way that they "heard" WW is antigun.
Straight from their website:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx
Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?
WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx
Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?
WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.
ApacheCoTodd
member
".... exchange of firearms." What an interesting turn of phrase.
I kinda read it as fundraisers not taking in firearms as prizes in a raffle sort of scenario more than a "...they don't deal with companies involved with firearms."
But that's just interpretation on my part. I wonder if say, Colt were to offer a WWF AR for sale with proceeds going to WWF in the form of cash - whether or not they'd turn it down or even allow the connection in manufacturing and marketing to begin with.
It'd be sad if they had a pat "NO FIREARMS!" policy across the board but then I've long since ceased to be surprised by the actions of the folk who generally, naturally take over "foundations" and charitable or otherwise "trusts".
I kinda read it as fundraisers not taking in firearms as prizes in a raffle sort of scenario more than a "...they don't deal with companies involved with firearms."
But that's just interpretation on my part. I wonder if say, Colt were to offer a WWF AR for sale with proceeds going to WWF in the form of cash - whether or not they'd turn it down or even allow the connection in manufacturing and marketing to begin with.
It'd be sad if they had a pat "NO FIREARMS!" policy across the board but then I've long since ceased to be surprised by the actions of the folk who generally, naturally take over "foundations" and charitable or otherwise "trusts".
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
So . . .
Why, exactly, would any pro-gun organization decline to get free time on a show like GunTalk?
He had a fifteen minute segment with HAVA today, covering their activities in rehabilitating wounded vets.
Why on earth would WWP turn down that kind of air time?
Tom's show isn't even vaguely radical. Moreover, today's show is the Veterans' Day Special edition. You would think WWP would be falling all over themselves for that.
I don't get it.
Why, exactly, would any pro-gun organization decline to get free time on a show like GunTalk?
He had a fifteen minute segment with HAVA today, covering their activities in rehabilitating wounded vets.
Why on earth would WWP turn down that kind of air time?
Tom's show isn't even vaguely radical. Moreover, today's show is the Veterans' Day Special edition. You would think WWP would be falling all over themselves for that.
I don't get it.
we are not amused
Member
What?I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen
Cosmoline
Member
I've heard "PTSD" blamed for everything from mass murders to low job figures. I wonder how many people have actually taken to the time to look up the actual diagnosis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/
It has nothing to do with mass murders or spouse shootings. And it isn't specific to combat. It can be linked to suicide via depression. But a very sizable chunk of the American population has been depressed. And how hard is it to commit suicide? You find a bridge or a body of water. And oddly I see nothing in their FAQ about no events near bridges. By adopting the anti-gun stance, WWP is buying into and supporting the popular notion that vets all have PTSD and that PTSD is going to make them shoot people or themselves. Which is rubbish. And actually helps to smear the reputation of wounded vets and make them into children/invalids rather than men and women. I'm always leery of these outfits, since they have a direct interest in ensuring that the people they treat remain dependent on them to ensure donations keep coming. If you get straightened out and don't need them, they become irrelevant. So anything that helps brand vets with a mark of Cain is great for them.
I hope they change their policy. It sounds like some of their people have been ignoring it already in organizing hunts and such.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/
It has nothing to do with mass murders or spouse shootings. And it isn't specific to combat. It can be linked to suicide via depression. But a very sizable chunk of the American population has been depressed. And how hard is it to commit suicide? You find a bridge or a body of water. And oddly I see nothing in their FAQ about no events near bridges. By adopting the anti-gun stance, WWP is buying into and supporting the popular notion that vets all have PTSD and that PTSD is going to make them shoot people or themselves. Which is rubbish. And actually helps to smear the reputation of wounded vets and make them into children/invalids rather than men and women. I'm always leery of these outfits, since they have a direct interest in ensuring that the people they treat remain dependent on them to ensure donations keep coming. If you get straightened out and don't need them, they become irrelevant. So anything that helps brand vets with a mark of Cain is great for them.
I hope they change their policy. It sounds like some of their people have been ignoring it already in organizing hunts and such.
Last edited:
AG,
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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:
- Status
