Originally Posted by MLeake
Uncle Billy, you act as though WWP is the only game in town. If it were, that might change things. It is not, so your argument is self-serving but wrong.
If I am interested in supporting better health care for poor families, I can choose between any number of organizations. I wish to avoid some issues that would devolve, rapidly, so I'm going to make one up... let's say that on the one hand, an organization stipulates that it will not be associated with the military, because military forces worldwide have been used to suppress the poor. Another organization, that helps provide health care for the poor, is willing to participate in fund-raising publicity with military units.
I'm a veteran and a retiree. Is it unreasonable for me to give my donations to the organization that seems to like the military, instead of the one that seems to blame the military for some of the ills with which it has to contend? Should I be embarrassed or ashamed to admit to the reason for my preference?
That, in a nutshell, is what you are claiming. I'm a gun owner and an RKBA advocate. (I'm also a veteran and retiree, and current contractor in the sandbox.) The WWP is not the only game in town. There are other organizations that perform similar functions, that don't explicitly or implicitly cast aspersions on firearms and firearm ownership. Why should I choose WWP over any of them?
I find your argument unsupportable.
Then don't agree with it.
I'm a 35 year veteran Active and Reserve of the Air Force, also a retiree from the USAF and my civilian job; I'm certified by the NRA and Boy Scouts to run shooting sports at resident Scout camps; I have cherished family heirloom weapons from the Revolution and WW2, I participate or have participated in every form of shooting sports, I hand load all the center fire calibers I have guns for, I have a New York CC permit and carry when I think it's necessary, I have built a few black powder flintlock rifles, and so on…. so I also am a supporter of the Second Amendment and the RKBA.
If the WWP doesn't want to take weapons companies' donations or to co-brand with them, I don't care. Whatever their reason, it doesn't seem to hinder their service to wounded vets and that service is why I support them.
Being anti-gun is joining organizations that are against guns and gun people, speaking directly against the Second Amendment and firearm ownership, boycotting guns and shooting sports. The WWP has not taken any such actions or advocates doing so. They seek to be uninvolved and unaligned with weapons by taking no action - through not advertising and co-branding with weapons companies. They wish to stand still and do nothing, to be neutral on guns. The first of these is actively against my interests and involvement with guns, the second has no effect on my interests and involvement with guns.
There is no logical, objective reason to conclude that not joining with gun companies means that the WWP are against gun companies. They are only against joining with gun companies in advertising; any conclusion further than that is unjustified by any objective reasoning and depends on speculation, assumption and a heavy dose of paranoid emotion to leap over the logical inconsistencies that making a stronger conclusion requires.
I refuse to do that; anyone who wants to draw conclusions that way is free to do so.
Not supporting the WWP because they won't take gun connections puts gun connections ahead of the service and comfort the WWP has provided to wounded vets. Abandoning the WWP for that reason isn't something I'd stoop to do, it would feel childish, selfish, disloyal and unwarranted to me. YMMV