Wounded Warrior Project = Anti-Firearms Industry

[Aguila Blanca]

I thought it had been noted that they do accept gifts from firearms companies. So by stating on their web site that they do not accept contributions from firearms companies, it would appear that they are liars. It appears they will accept contributions from GUN companies, but they won't allow the gun companies to publicize their support of the WWP as any sort of promotion.

And I am still troubled by their CEO's references to "return on investment." It sounds to me like a group whose principles are for sale. "We don't accept money from gun companies (except we really do) ... but if you can make it worth our while, we'll reverse that position for you."

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

"They exclude firearms companies. They do not exclude anti-gun companies. That is not neutral.

If I exclude no one, I am neutral. If I exclude women and not men, I am not neutral.

It doesn't matter how many ways you can say it.

If you can choose A and B and you choose both or neither, you are neutral. If you exclude one and not the other, you are not neutral.

That's logic. Exclusion of one party over another is not neutral.

You are inserting intent in their words where there is none. There is NO MENTION of anti-gun companies. The Brady Bunch is not a "firearms company". That's just silly.

It's obvious what they should do. If they want to be neutral, they accept donations from gun companies AND anti-gun companies.

They don't exclude both. They don't accept both. Either of those choices would be neutral. Excluding one without the other is the exact OPPOSITE of neutral."

If a "gun company" makes "guns", what is an "anti-gun company" make? "Anti-guns"? What sort of object is an "anti-gun"?

For the WWP to be neutral by not taking support from gun companies, they'd have to take no support from non-gun companies, not anti-gun companies, and there goes corporate sponsorship altogether.

"Non-" and "anti-" are not the same unless the illogical "Either with us or against us" is the rule, as it is here. If "non-gun" is the same as "anti-gun", every company that doesn't make guns is anti-gun and that's simply and clearly not true.

If the WWP wishes to remain uninvolved in the gun debate but still take corporate sponsorships, they can't accept support from gun companies because there are no companies that make "anti-guns" that they can take support from to remain neutral.

Said differently the WWP is gun-neutral because they already are not taking anything from anti-gun companies and never will because there are no such things to seek support from. For them to be neutral by taking all sides of the gun issue in this arena (corporate sponsorship), they'd have to create a company that makes anti-guns and then state that they take no support from it.

By taking gun company support they have taken sides in the gun debate and they don't want to do that because it would limit the support they get from people who are anti-gun, and anyway guns aren't WWP's mission, wounded vets are.

I don't see anyone on WWP's list of the corporations they are linked to that makes something else and is concurrently anti-gun. WWP has taken no visible support from other non-profits of any sort, has no link to the NRA or the Brady Bunch or any other sort of gun-related organization. If that's not neutral, then what is it?

Not choosing either side is the only way to remain neutral. WWP has no link to guns whatsoever, they are not pro-gun or anti-gun; that debate has 2 sides and the WWP has taken neither. That's neutral.

"If you aren't with us then you are against us" with a lot of illogical argument to deny a third possibility - "you are indifferent to us", that is, "you do us no good or harm by officially ignoring us". In short, "you are neutral".

The WWP is neutral on guns, and that's what's wrong with them here. Why not have the integrity to admit that not taking our side in the gun debate and accepting what it would cost in lost income is more important than supporting wounded veterans, which everyone believes the WWP does very well.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ok, you're right.

I tell you what, I'm going to take donations from TFL members and forward them on to WWP.

In the interest of being neutral, I won't be accepting any donations from members with the words "Uncle" or "Billy" in their user names.

I only say that because I want to be neutral. Accepting all donations would be taking sides and I don't want to do that, so I'm excluding certain persons, in the name of being neutral.

[Skans]

Please add "Skans" to that list, Brian. No donations from me to WWP.

I want to thank those who take the time to vigilantly flush out veiled anti-gun companies and non-profits so that I know who to support and who not to support.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The causal link between taking the dough and that leading to an increase in suicide is ridiculous. Can they come up with one case that shows that linkage?

It is clear that a shooting event with vets that is tied to them will lead to a suicide?

Glad we had two such events here recently.

[Beentown71]

Great explanation Peetza.

[grubbylabs]

As you can guess from my screen name here I have labs, I happen to have some higher end labs that we sell for quite a bit of money because of breeding, health, and hunting clearances. We take a lot of pride in our dogs and the new owners generally do as well. A few years ago I tried to donate one to a wounded vet (emotionally or physically) and it was a nightmare to get some one to go along with it. Finally I got our state chapter of Ducks unlimited to set something up and it was a really nice experience. However I have not been able to get it to happen again since.

I know I could probably go down to the local base or reserve unit and give one a way, but there is a little more to it than that. I want it to go to someone who really needs the dog, for hunting or just to have a companion. I don't have the resources to work with the medical facilities to get a good match. Taking on a dog is a big responsibility and I don't want it to be a bad experience for the dog or the vet.

Well any way I have been waiting for a reply from a some what local WWP staff member who herd that I am looking to donate another pup. Now I am rethinking going through them. If any one else has any suggestions or ideas I am open.

[Uncle Billy]

The WWP will get the usual donation I make to them directly from me, as always. See, the WWP and I understand who they are, what they stand for, what they do and why they practice the business policies they do, and it's all okay with me, I get it. Others don't (or won't, or can't).

The WWP doesn't have to publicly support gun companies to have earned my support for their efforts to help wounded veterans. Not linking with arms manufacturers subtracts nothing from their ability to help wounded vets, except that doing so will reduce the donations of those who think more of whether weapons manufacturers are linked to WWP or not than they do of the help and comfort the WWP has provided to wounded vets.

I'd be ashamed to admit that.

[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.

[grubbylabs]

What are some of the other organizations? Can you provide links?

[Brian Pfleuger]

No one is asking them to publicly support gun companies. I even said so. Neutrality means keeping your mouth shut.

So it's not a matter of being neutral. You're saying that silence is akin to support? If they made no statement, they're supporting gun companies?

Ok, no mention of groups like the Brady Bunch (must be support) and excluding firearms companies... Sounds even worse to me.

On the other hand, if they just kept their mouths shut and took donations from everybody, based on no criteria besides wanting to help wounded veterans, they could only be considered..... Wait for it....

Neutral!

[Metal god]

I just got to thinking about something . Could it be , by excluding firearms companies the are remaining neutral to all fireaems companies and not so much anti gun ? I'm looking at it like this . Is it the same as not co-branding with any religion ? It's not that they are anti religion or atheist . If they co-brand with one they should co-brand with all or if they co-brand with christians and not catholics does that make them anti catholic . It seems to me it's just easier to remain neutral by not co-branding with any of them .

I'm not sure if this makes sense or even if I buy it . I'm just trying to look at it from a different angle . What say you ?

[MLeake]

grubbylabs, from page 1 of a google search for veteran assistance groups:

www.va.gov/vso/

http://veteransnetwork.net/directory.php

www.helpingdisabledvets.com/

www.davpromises.org/support_veterans

soldiersangels.org/support-groups.html

https://www.nrd.gov/other_services....._organizations

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_veterans'_organizations

Different organizations have different specialties, of course, but the point is the WWP is not the only game in town.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Not cobranding with anyone IS neutral.
Cobranding with ANYone is neutral.
Excluding one and not the other is not neutral.
You don't REQUIRE cobranding with both sides to be neutral. If Remington is interested and Brady isn't, WWP could still take Remington and be neutral. That's the Brady's decision, not WWP.
If the Brady's are interested and Remington isn't, they could cobrand with the Bradys and still be neutral.
They don't have to SEEK both sides, they have to accept them if they come.
Specifically denying one and not the other is a preference, non-neutral.
If they have no statement at all, the reasonable assumption is neutrality. If they specifically include both/all sides, it assumes neutrality. If they specifically exclude both/all sides, it assumes neutrality.
The only way to NOT be neutral is to specifically disassociate with one group and not the other.
WWP has done the only thing, the ONLY thing, that is expressly NOT neutral.

[Uncle Billy]

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

[Uncle Billy]

Brian, the Brady Campaign isn't a corporation so it isn't included in co-branding. Co-branding and corporate donations are with corporations only, the Brady Bunch are a non-profit like the WWP is. That's what I was trying to illustrate. The Bradys aren't a corporation, they don't donate money or co-brand. There are no anti-gun corporations, that is, there are no corporations that make anti-guns.

The only way to be gun neutral in corporate donations is to not take any donations from the gun industry, because there are no corporations that make products that are opposite to guns.

The WWP hasn't made any other sort of alliance with anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign or any other organization that opposes gun rights or gun people. They have no stated and advertised connection with any gun-related entity pro or con. There is no better way to be neutral than that.

[Metal god]

If they specifically exclude both/all sides, it assumes neutrality.

Is this not what they did by excluding all firearms companies and all religions .

I noticed you used the term sides What SIDES are we talking about ?

They exclude the sex industry . So by your own logic they are anti sex and pro virgin . I guaratee you there is not one person over there at the WWP thats anti sex .

They excluded all firearms companies therefore remaining neutral to the firearms industry .

I have not heard the WWP say one thing about gun owners or there right to own guns like the brady bunch . On the contrary they made it clear on the radio show that they were in support of the 2nd amendment . That to me means they are pro gun and want to remain neutral with all of the firearms comanies and not single out one as being more worthy of there brand/logo .

The funny thing about this is I don't even really agree with what I just wrote . I'm just making the argument that I'm sure somebody has .

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Metal god

They exclude the sex industry . So by your own logic they are anti sex and pro virgin . I guaratee you there is not one person over there at the WWP thats anti sex.

...and on that note, we're going to lower the curtain on this one. Everyone has had their say, and we're going around in circles at this point.