The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 20, 2012, 10:00 AM   #51
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Posts: 750
While I do not agree, I do understand their position. I have seen too many of my brothers and sisters return after substantial injuries and want nothing to do with a weapon ever again. I understand this feeling, and will support them no matter how they feel about weapons. I do not agree with the charity's stance on accepting donations from firearm manufacturers. I would understand if they would not endorse them, but that is a different story. Basically, Wounded Warriors really does help with some of these soldiers, as long as they do, I will continue to donate to them. My support of these soldiers is more important than my views on how I think the charity should run their business. I am not trying to make anyone mad or stir the pot, but had seen too many of my service brothers and sisters, belittled and ignored when they returned. So my main thing is, no matter how they align themselves with religion or firearms, if they help these soldiers, they will have my support. They are not marching against firearm makers, they just do not want their support. While that is a poor move financially, it is the charity's ultimate decision.
__________________
" The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in Government.
..." - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; November 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM. Reason: language
CharlieDeltaJuliet is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 10:48 AM   #52
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
I do not donate to wounded warrior or any of the numerous organizations, which have become fashionable, allegedly supporting these brave men and women.

Instead I donate my time by assisting individual Veterans who are in need of help. Currently, I am assisting 2 veterans in obtaining their benefits. We are preparing to bring a homeless Vietnam Vet on to our place as a care taker.

When I meet a Vet I talk with them. I identify their needs, if any, and assist them by giving them a ride or a hot meal.

Most of the guys I meet need someone to listen who understands their situation.

I had the opportunity to spend time with one of the top Marine Snipers from Vietnam. He was suffering from PTSD and did not trust the system. Through our talks I was able get him speak with a DVA counselor who got him into the system. He is now getting help and benefits which allows him to live with dignity. The reason I was able to get through to him was, as he stated, "you never asked the question."

The question was "what is your body count". So for goodness sake, when you talk with these guys don't ask them what their body count is. Their number is very personal and they will speak of it when they trust you.

NOTE: The guys who brag about their count are generally pikers.
ltc444 is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 01:11 PM   #53
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
Tom Gresham recorded a bonus podcast that voiced his thoughts after the Nardizzi interview. You can listen to it here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/bonus-podc...-wwp-interview

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 01:27 PM   #54
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,619
Quote:
If WWP was the only charity, or even the best, that does what they do, I could understand contributing.

They're not the only or the best. Even without the gun issue, why contribute?

I see no controversy around The Fisher House, they have an A rating every place I've checked and they report 4% administrative costs.

Just the difference between WWPs approximately 15% and Fisher House's 4% would change my donation.
I certainly agree that if you prefer one charity over the other then go with the one you like. But Fisher House has a different mission than does the Wounded Warrior Project.
http://www.fisherhouse.org/
Quote:
Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/mission.aspx
Quote:
To raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of injured service members.
To help injured service members aid and assist each other.
To provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members.
Fisher supplies a valuable service but it is a single static mission. WWP has a more dynamic open ended mission. I'd suggest that the difference in administrative cost has more to do with the type of mission than assuming that WWP is run by feckless grifters.

So yes there are many worthy charities that serve the veteran community, but they are not interchangeable. If you support the mission of the WWP but don't like the organization, then find an organization with a similar mission.

In the end though private charities dealing with veteran's issues are a bandage on a hemorrhage. We should be demanding that the VA should cover the damages caused by sending young women and men into harms way.
Veterans shouldn't be pawns in political games as this thread shows.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 01:45 PM   #55
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,599
Right you are, but I don't worry much about specific missions.

I don't have funds to give to them all so there's always many, many worthwhile causes that go unfunded by me. In fact, my charitable donations are restricted to my church and affiliated organizations so I really have no dog in this particular fight, beyond the logic of it.

WWP and organizations like it will go on, with or without me, so if I were contributing to one that made me mad, I'd just pick another. If I'm giving to WWP, some other organization is missing my funds. If I give to that one, some other is missing them.

As long as they're good, it doesn't much matter which one you pick.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 11:06 PM   #56
medalguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,017
My wife and I have made significant donations to WWP the past three years. It has been one of our two chosen charities to which we make donations. The Salvation Army is the other charity.

However, after reading the comments posted here and in other gun forums, we have jointly decided that we will no longer support WWP. There are a number of equally good organizations out there who do just as much good for our wounded veterans, and we will make a selection of another charity for our year-end charitable donation.
medalguy is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 01:38 AM   #57
El Paso Joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2006
Location: Spokane Valley
Posts: 327
This is a tough issue. They do a lot of good. But I don't donate to them. I am a life mamber of the DAV and active in local veteran groups. I am a retired counselor with a depth in counseling combat vets in trauma and substance abuse and recovery. What the WWP does is good stuff; but it comes at a price for me. They use their (somewhat liberal) bully pulpit to do tacit ill to a fundamental right of veterans and Americans in general.

I do not think I can support them as broadly as I would like to but I am not sure my opinion would be more than damning them with faint praise at this point...

I find a lot to agree with in ltc444's post. It has been my experience working with vets who wand to talk "but not to somebody who wasn't there..." It is a good point to identify myself as another vet with PTSD, substance abuse, and degrees and licenses on the wall who is service connected. And have walked through the system a bit.

Last edited by El Paso Joe; November 21, 2012 at 01:44 AM.
El Paso Joe is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 08:53 AM   #58
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Identifying one's self as pro-gun immediately implies an alliance with the NRA in the minds of almost everyone who gets that news. Along with the NRA comes some far-right politicians who bring all their politics along, most of which have zilch to do with gun rights. This defines the NRA as an advocate of all of Conservative and far-right politics including those well beyond just gun rights. While the NRA has done a lot to protect and support our rights, it has tainted its message and thus tainted open support for gun rights in general with this unnecessary and unfortunate alliance with politics and perspectives that unnecessarily limit its appeal, and which an increasing number of citizens are abandoning.

In short, it is impossible to speak in favor of gun rights or even to identify positively with guns in general without simultaneously and unavoidably associating one's self with all of Conservative and further right wing politics and perspectives, an unavoidable marriage created by the NRA, one that thanks to the NRA's powerful voice and visibility doesn't need mention of the NRA to have effect. I don't blame WWP for avoiding that, its agenda has nothing to do with the politics of guns or is it limited to the politics or perspectives of the right that openly and positively attaching itself to guns would imply. This earns them my support, since their mission is one I believe in, and it's clearly the totality of what they are about.

This and other indications of the evolution of attitudes toward the positive aspects of gun ownership and use (self protection, the healthy and philosophically consistent aspects of hunting one's meat, for examples) are growing beyond the out-of-date assumption that being pro-gun is identical with having pro-right or pro-Conservative perspectives.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 02:07 PM   #59
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Much of the perceived association between the NRA and far-right causes isn't the NRA's fault, but that of folks who create an inaccurate perception.

Many NRA members expect the organization to promote causes that have nothing to do with its primary mission, and they get huffy when the NRA doesn't get involved.

That said, you're right in that the perception is still there, and the NRA could do more to distance themselves from it.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 06:57 PM   #60
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
If it's an inaccurate perception, the NRA has propagated it, the list of who's invited to be key speakers and the sponsored events at the annual conventions are definitely the choices of a right-wing organization. Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and Evangelical prayer breakfasts (for example) aren't likely to be sponsored by an organization in the middle, and anyone who reads the news gets enough snippets of such choices to come to a legit conclusion on where the NRA stands. The most powerful place to stand on gun rights is to not stand anywhere but on gun rights issues, but that's not been the NRA's politics. So it isn't an inaccurate perception that the NRA is a right-wing, radical right-wing even, organization. They endorse politicians in accordance with just their position on gun rights, but that's not as widely known as the public identity they create for themselves which clearly identifies them with Conservative politics and perspectives, most of which are well beyond gun rights and have no impact on them.

The annual convention is clearly meant only to be a money maker for the NRA, so it's constructed to appeal to Conservative Evangelicals, but the identity it tacks on the NRA has increasingly cost the NRA members, and worse as limited the number of those who would champion gun rights to those who also embrace the totality of Conservative politics. That excludes an increasing number of people who are Liberals and so won't join an effort that requires them to be (or identifies them as) supporters of other non-gun-related political issues they abhor, strongly enough to stay silent. What a voice we would have on gun rights if it came from the panorama of political perspectives instead of just a narrowly defined, increasingly unpopular corner.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 07:56 PM   #61
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,713
While I do not totally agree with your characterization of the NRA there is no doubt the NRA could do a better job. As for the people they align with I think that has more to do with those individuals seeking to be aligned with the NRA than the other way around.

I do agree that the NRA does not always do a good job in the war of propaganda. The NRA should seek to cultivate relationships with like minded individuals at all positions in American life. For instance at one time Whooppi Goldberg was an NRA member, so if she still is what a spokesperson she could be. Also, I read where Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were gun owners and stated they would not hesitate to defend their family.

Yes, the NRA could do a better job, but truly they have already done a pretty good job. Now, not sure how this relates to WWP, but just piggybacking off your post.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 09:36 PM   #62
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
Tom Gresham wrote an editorial for The Shooting Wire this week. You can find it at http://www.shootingwire.com/features/226802.

In part, it reads:

Quote:
Having been in the gun rights fight since before the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, I've seen a lot of changes. For decades I've said this fight really is a struggle for public opinion. We have made great strides. Forty years ago a majority of the U.S. population thought that handguns should be severely restricted. That's not the case now. Through education and exposure the public recognize gun owners as "normal" people just like them. This is huge.

On the other hand, there is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world?

Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won't do business with the firearms industry.

Each of these is a very public way of saying "We don't do business with 'those people'." Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography.

Sure, the Wounded Warrior Project is only too happy to take our money. They "allow" shoots and hunts as fundraisers, but they don't want their logo associated with us. They are saying in a very public way that they refuse to be associated with us.
Especially if you're inclined to think the story has been blown out of proportion, please go read the whole thing. It might give you some food for thought.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 09:56 PM   #63
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Good point, Kathy. I also must agree that the NRA has strayed away from a clear focus on gun rights to a more political agenda. Inviting outliers like Glenn Beck doesn't help to convince anyone not of his persuasion that they are left-right neutral organization. As I said elsewhere, the GOP is coming to understand that a noninclusive party is not going to work.

One can disagree with this or that about conservative values but the debate as to be to nature of realistic policies. Pandering to media conservatives with their 'theories' and insults won't aid the RKBA cause.

Such a strategy may have short term financial benefits but doesn't help bring the theory of the RKBA to folks who don't want Beck or Hannity baggage.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 09:35 AM   #64
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Gresham's column typifies the attitudes that conservative perspectives have been criticized for: "If you aren't with us you are against us, and that diminishes your credibility and our respect for you." Said differently: "We are good; if you aren't clearly in support of us you are evil, there is no middle ground." There is compromise and negotiation possible between different ideas, but there is none with evil, which seeds disruptive and unnecessary polarizations when indifference is deemed a statement of opposition and so is not worthy of respect and instead warrants separation and disparagement.

The WWP apparently wishes to remain unheard and unaligned on guns and other polarizing, divisive topics that have nothing to do with WWP's mission. To a balanced perspective that seems reasonable, legit and ought to be good business. But the condemnation that earns, as expressed in Gresham's essay and the responses of others who will abandon WWP and disparage them for such official indifference to guns goes past just ignoring that indifference, which does no harm to anyone, and casts them as anti-gun simply because they aren't pro-gun. It costs the WWP the support of those who subscribe to the aforementioned attitude, one that when applied to a larger context contradicts one of the fundamental founding principles of this country- the freedom to be who one is as long as it harms no one else, and respect for those that have the same freedom but are different from us.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 11:20 AM   #65
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
Self defense is a basic and fundamental human right. The right to own firearms and other weapons is protected within our Constitution because it is so basic to that fundamental right. To the extent that these basic rights are "controversial," they are controversial because we as gun owners have allowed them to become so.

My fundamental human rights are not for sale.

There are many, many other places to give charitably, to support injured veterans and other worthwhile causes. I don't need to line the pockets of an organization that pays its CEO hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and wants me and mine to sit at the back of their bus and shut up. I'll give to another organization instead. Why? Because the ideas you feed are the ones that grow!

I don't want to live in a society where my basic human rights are "controversial" in some way, so I won't reward that perspective by feeding it dollars I could spend or give elsewhere.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:04 PM   #66
tdawg
Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy View Post
Gresham's column typifies the attitudes that conservative perspectives have been criticized for: "If you aren't with us you are against us, and that diminishes your credibility and our respect for you." Said differently: "We are good; if you aren't clearly in support of us you are evil, there is no middle ground." There is compromise and negotiation possible between different ideas, but there is none with evil, which seeds disruptive and unnecessary polarizations when indifference is deemed a statement of opposition and so is not worthy of respect and instead warrants separation and disparagement.

The WWP apparently wishes to remain unheard and unaligned on guns and other polarizing, divisive topics that have nothing to do with WWP's mission. To a balanced perspective that seems reasonable, legit and ought to be good business. But the condemnation that earns, as expressed in Gresham's essay and the responses of others who will abandon WWP and disparage them for such official indifference to guns goes past just ignoring that indifference, which does no harm to anyone, and casts them as anti-gun simply because they aren't pro-gun. It costs the WWP the support of those who subscribe to the aforementioned attitude, one that when applied to a larger context contradicts one of the fundamental founding principles of this country- the freedom to be who one is as long as it harms no one else, and respect for those that have the same freedom but are different from us.
Well said, Uncle Billy. Thank you.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
tdawg is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:15 PM   #67
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
I don't want to live in a society where my basic human rights are "controversial" in some way, so I won't reward that perspective by feeding it dollars I could spend or give elsewhere.
My takeaway from the interview wasn't that WWP found 2A issues controversial: they just didn't consider us to be a profitable enough demographic.

Of course, that's no less offensive, really.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:35 PM   #68
ROGER4314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2009
Location: East Houston
Posts: 257
In Houston, the owner of a local gun shop went on a radio program praising efforts to eliminate Internet ammunition purchases. His motives were obvious. By sacking Internet ammo purchases, his sales improved.

Our Texas forum got wind of his position, posted the interview messages and before it was over, he had over 13,000 really ticked off Texans nipping at his heels. Later, a full retraction and clarification came out of it.

I will not support the WWP knowing that they have a knife plunged deeply in my back. It's a shame that the best and most deserving of our citizens need to suffer for WWP's Liberal nonsense.

I urge our members to look carefully into the mission statements of groups before you support them. I was interested in joining the "Gray Panthers", a militant senior citizens lobbying group. In the GP agenda, they state that gun ownership must be restricted or eliminated. I flushed them like a BM swirling down the toilet.

Flash
ROGER4314 is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:44 PM   #69
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,255
I have grave reservations about supporting an organization that is, essentially, becoming a for-profit charity, with more than a third of their income going for advertising, and a substantial amount going to pay lavish salaries for the founder and members of his family.

The best perspective I've seen in print on the Wounded Warrior controversy is the CTD Blog here: http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=32314
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:50 PM   #70
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
Tom Servo,

I don't buy that for a minute. Here's Tom Gresham's take on that, transcribed from the bonus podcast.

"[Nardizzi said] the reason we don't do that [allow gun-related companies to display our logo on fundraising efforts for WWP] with the gun companies is because of the 'return on investment' is not there. The ROI just isn't there. By the time we cover our costs, we just don't make enough money doing that.

"I said, 'Well, okay...' and then he jumped in and he said, 'Well, I'd love to do some things with bikes, cycling, because I'm a cyclist, but there's just not enough return there either.

"This led me to ask, 'Well, okay, so if it's all about the ROI, and you won't do cycling, then why isn't cycling listed on your website?' I don't see cycling mentioned anywhere, nothing says we won't do events, we won't co-brand, with cycling. But you specifically list firearms companies...

"So Steve Nardizzi is telling me it's all about the ROI, it's not that we don't like guns, so I said, 'If it's all about the ROI, then you would just turn it down because of that, but you wouldn't specifically list it on your website as, this is an untouchable area and these are people we will not be seen with. We can't co-brand with you people."

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 12:57 PM   #71
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,237
Kathy, you're correct as well. My point was that either reason is incredibly insulting and disenheartening.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 01:02 PM   #72
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
Gary,

Thanks for posting the link to that excellent article. I hadn't seen it yet, and it was a good read.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 01:23 PM   #73
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,640
Ditto on that. It was very well said.

It is quite a shame. There have been events in San Antonio for the vets - the rationales are bogus.

I see quite a few in town, given our large military hospitals, and to interject such idiocy into supporting them is horrific. Soliders with artificial limbs, in wheel chairs with double amputations don't need such fair weather 'lawyerish' nonsense.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 02:25 PM   #74
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Who told Dave Dolbee that WWF was against the firearms industry? All the WWF said was that it didn't want to be associated with it, not that it was against it. The "Be with me as fervent as I am or be my enemy" syndrome, which he reaffirms with "…Quite honestly, I do not care if it takes money from the anti-gun crowd as well as the pro-gun groups. Apolitical is just fine with me. My priority is to help our wounded veterans any way I can, but I will not deal with those organizations bent on taking a stance firmly against organizations, groups or beliefs that I strongly relate with." That's a contradiction on its face since all the WWF wishes is to be apolitical (that is, non-aligned) on weapons issues.

What Steve Nardizzi had to say about "COI" might have this explanation: The money donated by arms related donors wouldn't cover the cost of the loss of donations from those who would not donate because of the WWP's endorsement of arms-related entities. Maybe someone did some market research and found this to be the case

What to guns have to do with helping wounded veterans, other than it's not impossible that the vet was wounded by one which might be a big discouragement for anyone who would make substantial donations to an organization that helps those veterans, an organization that's separate from arms-related entities. I'll bet there's a legion of people and organizations that are so persuaded.

People whose first priority is guns and is convinced that any who aren't as devoted to guns as they are is their enemy won't donate to WWP, but WWP is not their enemy, WWP doesn't have a dog in the gun-rights fight. Blaming them for that doesn't make a lot of sense.

P.S. If high-paid executives of donation-supported organizations are the cause of a heartburn, then don't look at what the NRA pays Wayne LaPierre, it'll give you ulcers.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old November 23, 2012, 03:02 PM   #75
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
I am wondering why some people at using the NRA to deflect from an issue that concerns the WWP?
WWP saying thy somehow do not contains with the firearm industry because of return on investment is bogus. As someone who does marketing research this makes no sense. Unless your motive of mission are political you take every opportunity in the world to reach out to an audience that met be interested in supporting you especially if they are a large audience.
WWP was invited to be a guest on Gun Talk a nationally syndicated show to talk about their program. They turned them down citing the "co branding issue"? Being a guest does not co brand your organization. This is absolute BS. thousands of organizations are involved in thousands of interviews on thousands of programs each year. They look at audience numbers and reach unless they have a political agenda. WWP was revealed as being anti gun then they tried to lie about it. I would have disagreed with them but respected them if they simply said our organization is anti gun, sorry, since our clients have all been injured by firearms or other weapons we thunk this is for the best. Bu they can't do that.
mayosligo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14029 seconds with 9 queries