[Uncle Billy]

I've read all of what's posted here and all of the included links, and it seems to me that the WWP is considered to be "anti" only because they refuse to say they are "pro" by "co-branding" and allowing the use of their logo on weapons for sale. They haven't said anything that aligns them with the Brady Bunch, or Handgun Control, or endorsed any anti-gun legislation, or tried to limit CC rights, or anything else that would legitimately earn them the label of "anti". Any objective look at this says that they wish to be left out of the pro-anti gun debate, since their mission requires no interest in its results either way. It's the illogical, paranoid perspective that says that "if you aren't pro-gun you are anti gun" are the only possibilities which leaves out the most populated perspective - "we don't have an interest in either side of that argument, gun rights are not a part of our mission and so we take no definitive sides in it."

Their interest is in helping wounded veterans and not in gun issues. The WWF knows the error of unnecessarily limiting supporters with unrelated issues that don't bear on their mission and that's what they're pursuing, unlike the NRA that welds unrelated conservative politics and perspectives to gun control issues which thereby increasingly limits supporters of gun rights. And that's how the NRA came up here. Unfortunately the WWP will lose the support of pro-gun zealots who aren't committed to objectivity very much, but the WWP has factored that in to their decisions which is where "COI" comes in.