This does not sound good at all. (H/T to Fred Propheter on facebook)
Although the controversy is just making its way to the mainstream radar, the Wounded Warrior Project has been disassociating itself with firearms and knives for the past couple of years. References on its website have changed from “firearms” to “weapons.” Corporate sponsors such as Savage Arms are now replaced with Acosta Sales and Marketing and UHAUL.
Listening to a recent interview with Wounded Warrior Project’s CEO Steve Nardizzi, well, you would have thought it was ‘ol Slick Willy dodging the question. He started off by saying the WWP supported the Second Amendment and was happy to participate in hunting adventures and shoots as fundraisers—yet it prohibits using the WWP logo at such events.
Nardizzi went on to explain that the Wounded Warrior Project would not co-brand with firearm or knife manufacturers and retailers. He explained, “The return on investment just wasn’t there.” Return on investment? How much investment is WWP putting into the pot? It has no problem taking the firearm industry’s money; it just doesn’t want to be seen in public with us. So, essentially, the Wounded Warrior Project’s stance is that it does not want to be seen kissing us after it is done poking us?
What a great message this sends to our wounded heroes: “You were trusted with assault weapons (real ones, not what politician’s term ‘assault weapons’ when seeking reelection) until you were injured in service to our country.” Then…well, you might decide to hurt yourself so—in defense of the WWP’s reputation, not your future well being—we cannot be seen as partnering with ‘those companies’ in public.”
The author was one of the lucky ones managing to return home unharmed and with a few fond memories such as enjoying a few rounds of skeet while aboard ship. Other returning veterans were not as lucky and need our support.
This was brought out in Leslie A. Coleman’s—public relations director for WWP—response to an e-mail message asking for a clarification to its stance, “Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.” I wonder if WWP even considered the fact that the extra money could go toward additional support and treatment. Sweeping it under the carpet by playing politics sure as hell isn’t going to prevent a tragedy, but funds and support might!
If WWP does not want to play with the firearms industry, and it is all about the money, well WWP picked which side of the fence it wanted to be on, not me. And let’s go a step further in seeking the truth. It is not about the money. While being interviewed Nardizzi explained that co-branding requires significant internal coordination with lawyers, PR people and others to manage it and finished by stating that we wouldn’t understand it. Really? I certainly do.
Nardizzi was then countered with the suggestion of an offer to cover all WWP internal expenses, then co-brand (use WWP’s logo on guns and knives) as a way to contribute to WWP. Nardizzi refused to give a straight answer. So if it is all about the money and you offer to cover all costs, why wouldn’t WWP jump at the opportunity? Because it is not now, nor has it ever been about the money—it’s about the politics.
During the interview, Nardizzi took the offensive, saying, he “can’t believe donors would withhold donations from wounded vets because we don’t get anything out of it” (use of the logo). Yet, WWP would risk losing donations by playing politics instead of focusing on raising the funds to help our vets.
via Wounded Warrior Project Draws a Line in the Sand Against Guns and Knives.
Go read the rest of that…
I think it is time to raise a stink about this one and let these people know that they are either on the side of liberty or tyranny. Pick a side WWP or get the hell out of business of the Military.