Well then there is this, if you scroll down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoss662
Printable View
Well then there is this, if you scroll down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoss662
There's a difference between not wanting to license your logo on something and being against it in general. I don't for a minute believe WWP or most of its supporters or organizers are anti-gun but I can understand why they wouldn't want their logo on a bunch of AR lowers. They are trying to appeal to a broader public, most of whom aren't shooters and don't have any understanding about shooting or shooting culture. Heck, even those of us immersed in it will disagree on shooting "culture" -- why would you expect some namby-pamby NPR-listening PBS-watching "organizer" to understand (even as your trying to get her to donate $20 to help some of our guys and gals get on with lives that were interrupted protecting HER way of life)?
I don't believe for a second they are anti-gun. One of the most common things they do is host hunting trips for wounded vets. In fact, I know of a large property near Westcliffe that was just purchased to be used for rehabilitating vets through hunting, outdoors and small town relaxation.
I suspect this is simply about WWP not wanting to co-brand.
I will do more research on this.
There are tons of other organizations to support our vets who are pro 2A.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...om-church.html
Church Says Wounded Warrior Project Refused Their Money
so, whose money is left to take?
Yet another reason why Homes For Our Troops is a much better org.
http://www.homesforourtroops.org/sit...ename=homepage