The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Wounded Warrior Project = Anti-Firearms Industry

Uncle Billy · November 23, 2012, 06:15 PM

"Specifically excluding items" (logos) of participants, that is, not branding with one of the participants in the debate is how they "wish to be left out of the debate". It's that simple.

They inserted themselves in the debate by co-branding, and wished to remove themselves from the debate by not co-branding anymore. How simple can it be?

Sex, guns and religion are hot topic issues that people have passion about and are clearly divided on. Taking on a visibility in those turbid roiling debates when none of them have anything at all to do with their mission is what motivates WWP to eschew any presence therein. Sex, religion and guns are issues that have nada to do with WWP's mission so they chose to be distant from them. How simple is that? Are they against sex? Religion? Or is it that WWP has no part of who it is and what it does being dependent on them and so finds no sensible reason to take a role in them?

If WWP lets its logo appear on a "Wounded Warrior" model of an assault rifle (where it would have the most commercial success, probably), and that causes an anti-gun or anti-assault weapon reaction from a lot of donors actual and potential who withdraw their donations on principle (wouldn't be much of a surprise if it had that effect) then whatever MegaBlaster paid them might not be a net gain for WWP. In short, the money MegaBlaster pays for the WWP logo on their rifle (the investment) might not be enough to cover the loss of donations that it results in (the cost of the investment).

Their opposition to firearms companies is only that they don't want to advertise with them, they don't want to have WWP officially associated with the arms industry. They have said NOTHING that goes any further than that, that shows they are against firearms companies. The firearms industry has no significance whatever in WWP's mission, so why does it need to be a part of WWV's identity? Truth is, it doesn't, and if that puts panties in knots, oh well.

November 23, 2012, 06:15 PM	#83
Uncle Billy Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2009 Location: Small city in New York Posts: 482	"Specifically excluding items" (logos) of participants, that is, not branding with one of the participants in the debate is how they "wish to be left out of the debate". It's that simple. They inserted themselves in the debate by co-branding, and wished to remove themselves from the debate by not co-branding anymore. How simple can it be? Sex, guns and religion are hot topic issues that people have passion about and are clearly divided on. Taking on a visibility in those turbid roiling debates when none of them have anything at all to do with their mission is what motivates WWP to eschew any presence therein. Sex, religion and guns are issues that have nada to do with WWP's mission so they chose to be distant from them. How simple is that? Are they against sex? Religion? Or is it that WWP has no part of who it is and what it does being dependent on them and so finds no sensible reason to take a role in them? If WWP lets its logo appear on a "Wounded Warrior" model of an assault rifle (where it would have the most commercial success, probably), and that causes an anti-gun or anti-assault weapon reaction from a lot of donors actual and potential who withdraw their donations on principle (wouldn't be much of a surprise if it had that effect) then whatever MegaBlaster paid them might not be a net gain for WWP. In short, the money MegaBlaster pays for the WWP logo on their rifle (the investment) might not be enough to cover the loss of donations that it results in (the cost of the investment). Their opposition to firearms companies is only that they don't want to advertise with them, they don't want to have WWP officially associated with the arms industry. They have said NOTHING that goes any further than that, that shows they are against firearms companies. The firearms industry has no significance whatever in WWP's mission, so why does it need to be a part of WWV's identity? Truth is, it doesn't, and if that puts panties in knots, oh well. __________________ Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? Last edited by Uncle Billy; November 23, 2012 at 06:28 PM.