wounded warrior project zumbos themselves

Well, since the Wounded Warrior Project does not want my money or any money from firearm owners or firearm-related corporations, I guess I will be donating more to Soldiers’ Angels in the future. 

Of course, if Leslie Coleman, the “public relations director” for WWP wants to explain how this sentence: 

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

… ,wherein she successfully alienates a not-insignificant fraction of their donors and supporters, is a good idea in any universe, I would be all ears. 

I will not be holding my breath, though. 

[ETA]  So I guess Playboy is not a company wherein the product or message is sexual in nature?  Is there any way that statement was not idiotic?  [/ETA]

12 thoughts on “wounded warrior project zumbos themselves”

  1. Didn’t Glenn Beck raise $1 million for WWP? My airsoft group gave them money in the past, when did they adopt this policy?

  2. Countdown to Leslie needing a new job in 3….2….

    Seriously? I barely qualify as a part of the gunblog world and I know that a pretty fair selection of gun makers, and other groups asociated with guns, REGULARLY donate and fund raise for WWP. Guess thats changing huh?

  3. Geeze, it’s like they’ve never EVER been on the internet before. KNOW YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE, PEOPLE. I mean, Linoge, you personally depants someone for something like this on, like, a twice-monthly basis! Let’s see, Farago, Chiappa, the aforementioned Zumbo…

    Frankly, if there’s an organization that acts this stupid, they deserve the reaction. Is it still “for a good cause” when, apparently, the cause isn’t what you thought it was?

    And meanwhile, I get to sit back and watch them sputter through multiple press releases and people getting fired and smile, because I take pleasure in the distress of stupid people.

    “Wreak havoc, and let slip the SEO’s of the gunblogs!”

  4. Regardless, I’ll still remain a supporter. One gun commentator gets butt hurt and I’m supposed to get upset? Don’t think so.

    In the word of SFC Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis!”

  5. WWP does events with the NRA. How does their public relations square that?

    WWP is a private organization and can choose to take or refuse money as it sees fit, and their “notice” gives them enough latitude in that regard. But in this age of identity politics, one wonders what the response would have been if they rejected funds from organizations affiliated with, say, Mexico or Mexicans, where violent drug cartels reap profits from selling the very substances many vets are abusing? I doubt it would ever enter their minds to do that, and rightfully so because it would be wrong. It isn’t wrong currently to insult or discriminate against people who exercise fully their Constitutional rights. That must change. It is simply a lie that vets who commit suicide do so because of guns. To the contrary, I’d suggest that shooting can be a very relaxing activity that focuses the mind and can relieve depression and anxiety.

  6. @ LiquiFlorian: Do not know, and do not know. Seem like good questions for Leslie there :).

    @ Ruth: WWP was unquestionably one of the favorites of the firearm community to support… I was actually thinking about using them as the target for my next fundraiser/giveaway thing here.

    I dare say I will be reconsidering that particular decision.

    @ bluesun: Eh, it is more like twice a year these days, but, yeah, any company that (a) does not understand their target audience, and (2) does not understand the value of Google searches deserves whatever is coming to them.

    Sure, WWP does some good. But as other commenters other places have said, if they can afford to pay their head honcho $300,000+ a year and take out TV commercials, they obviously do not need my money that badly.

    @ MAJ Mike: You are, of course, welcome to do with your money whatever you so desire, but when a company tells me, in very plain, repeated language that they do not want my money, I am not going to give it to them.

    Quite simple, really.

    @ Tom: Yeah, the whole “guns are bad because some vets kill themselves with gun” argument was just so laughably ludicrous I did not even bother addressing it. For Chrissake, there is no shortage of private organizations that make a point of taking wounded veterans hunting and recreationally shooting, just to get them out and about and doing things they love, yet WWP would apparently have you believe those folks are doing the work of the Devil.

  7. I was wondering if anyone else I had seen this. I got it Sunday across Facebook but didn’t believe it. Confirmed it today after listening to the podcast of Sunday’s Gun Talk, and got my post up.

    If you really want to have some fun, go on FB and find them. I forgot to unfriend them and got this evening’s unapology. You’d swear that these people were looking at the Zumbo Affair timeline and thinking that “If we just do it harder, it’ll be OK.”

    I really regret withdrawing my support; they do good stuff. But so do other groups, and they can use the money as well. Perhaps they aren’t trying to take my guns, but by acting as if I’m unclean because I’m involved with guns…well, let’s just say I tend not to go where I’m unwelcome.

  8. @ MAJ Mike:
    There’s also the blatant hypocrisy in their statement. They claim that “WWP does not […] receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds […] from alcohol or firearms companies”, yet they seem to have had no issues with the $50,000 Kahr Arms donated just six months ago, or the Playboy thing Linoge linked to above.

    It seems they only stick to their principles until there are enough zeros involved. Personally, I have no use for a charity like that (or any organization like that, really). There are enough other groups out there doing the same thing (that may also actually get a greater percentage of donations to the soldiers) that we can afford to be picky about who gets our money.

  9. @ The Freeholder: Oh, I have absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, that Wounded Warrior Project is not actively anti-firearms to the degree that they are supporting “gun control” or any of that idiocy. As I have seen expressed elsewhere, however, I do believe this to be a situation of, “We want your money but we do not want to be seen with you.”

    @ Jake: Additionally, Wounded Warrior Project is the recipient of funds raised at Tough Mudder events… events sponsored by Dos Equis (especially the post-party). In fact, the only part of the sentence I see to be unviolated so far is the prohibition against “religious in nature” organizations, and even that could probably be turned up with a little digging.

    Whinging about who is giving you money is stupid. Turning away money because it came from certain organizations/groups is stupid. Unnecessarily alienating your support base / narrowing the field from which you can receive donations is stupid. I am seeing a consistent theme.

  10. And, seriously, a policy against working with corporations of a sexual nature? Even looking past Playboy sponsoring a fundraiser for them, they should know better than to make plaster saints out of soldiers

Comments are closed.