Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Is the Red Cross going anti-gun part III

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran pourshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    This transcribes most of my March 31, 2008 discussion with Paul Regal of the American Red Cross (ARC).

    Sorry it took so long to post....

    Paul J. Regal
    Chief Executive Officer
    American Red Cross
    Blood Services
    Mid-Atlantic Region
    611 West Brambleton Ave.
    Norfolk, Va. 23510

    It took some time to get in contact with each other. This all started
    2007-12-20 and it got to the right guy 2008-02-13. We finally talked
    2008-03-31. Illness and travel on his end and illness on mine just
    made it difficult to get in touch.

    The call lasted about 43 minutes.

    We spent about 3 minutes in greeting and discussing the flu that had
    taken its toll on both of us.

    He brought up that he understood I did not like the "no guns" policy.

    He thanked me for being a faithful donor and stated that they knew
    some people would be displeased with it. He also said it was a
    "conservative" policy.

    We discussed the meaning of 'conservative' and I explained how my gun
    and giving blood were the same in that they both were meant to save
    lives.

    He explained that when he said 'conservative' he meant the extremes
    that the ARC went to in an effort to prevent blood contamination.

    I said I understood.

    He explained how it was a medical procedure and that, although rare,
    people had convulsed under the needle.

    I said that I understood, but that even with some donation issues I
    had in the past, the thought of going for my gun had never occurred
    to me.

    I asked if it had happened and, if so, where and when?

    He asked if I meant if someone with a gun had fainted.

    I said, Has anyone fainted and gone for their gun? Has something
    happened to make you develop this policy? Or is someone being overly
    cautious and developing a policy when nothing has happened to warrant
    it? It other words, is this a solution in search of a problem?

    He said he would not frame it that way that it had no happened in any
    program he was overseeing, to the best of his knowledge. Nor had he
    ever heard of a gun discharging at a donation center.

    He then went on to say that they had gotten very few objections to it.

    I asked where it had started as I had been lead to believe that this
    started in the Philadelphia area.

    He said he did not know and even went as far as to say that he found
    the fact that he did not know embarrassing.

    On a side note, it really was refreshing to talk to the man as he was
    exceptionally candid about everything.

    I responded with the fact that they were disarming people in the name
    of donor safety boggled my mind. I explained how the policy would
    require me to disarm and be defenseless from the time I left the house
    until I returned. The other option was to leave the gun in my car
    where it could be stolen. I said that neither option was acceptable.
    I explained that my gun was like a child that needed to stay close to
    be safe. That it was safer in the holster on my hip, being carried,
    then it was anywhere else. I also explained how the weather was my
    main motivation for either open or concealed carry.

    He explained some about how the blood regions were set up and that he
    did not believe it got started in the Philly area. He said that he
    believed about 25% of the blood regions had this, or similar, policies
    in place.

    He then likened it to going into a hospital and going under anesthetic
    and asked if I knew the local hospital's policy on firearms.

    On a side note I did not think to ask local or general. Point being I
    do not wear it when I sleep (general) but I do most other things
    (local).

    I explained that a good percentage of hospitals are anti-gun procedure
    or no procedure, but that there was no legalities regarding gun carry.
    I also explained that no gun signs on the door meant nothing unlike
    some other states as you could miss it and the most they could do is
    ask you to leave when they found out you were armed and if you did not
    it was criminal trespass. I also explained that I had gone through
    surgical procedures with my gun. I mentioned my dentist, doctor, and
    other appointments attended with a gun and the most that happens is
    that some of the office staff ends up taking a class from my to get
    there CHP. I asked him how familiar he was with the type of person
    who had a CHP.

    He said he was conversant with it and believed he understood the issue.

    I said I meant deeper then that. To know them as citizens and as
    individuals. There are over 150,000 people in Virginia with their
    permit and there carry concealed most places in Virginia to include
    your donation centers before your sign went up. And of those 150000
    people that have received training, had background checks, and are in
    the most law abiding portion of the population. A permit holder is
    less likely to commit their first felony then an off duty LEO. Would
    it be an issue if an LEO came in, in uniform with his gun? Would you
    ask them to disarm?

    He said that has happened and he said that that has happened and the
    LEOs self-disarm.
    He also went on to talk about donations at the FBA academy and VA
    police stations

    There was some back and forth here but he did say that if the police
    are on duty they would be armed. He said if they were off duty, they
    would comply with the policy.

    I explained how CHP holders were more likely to practice more often
    then the police that they were allowing to donate armed. I said that
    they were taking people that were safer and saner then the LEO
    community and disarming them. I said that in the 10 years since shall
    issue (and I explained shall and may issue) …then I got slightly off
    track..

    I explained that what they were doing was setting up 2 classes of
    people. The on duty LEO and the average citizen with a CHP.

    He said with the way I presented it, he would have to agree with it.
    And then went on to male the point that they were not tying to make
    judgment about the people who had the firearms, but in the event of an
    inadvertent accident of some kind….and I think that would be the
    concern….the inadvertent discharge of firearm

    I asked, how would that firearm discharge?

    He said I do not know.

    I said Modern firearms do not go off when dropped and in the holster
    they are safe as safe can be. They are more likely to get stolen out
    of your car then your holster and what I cam seeing is a double class
    of citizen. In essence, what you are telling me, and people that are
    serious about defending their lives...and I have put some of this
    information out on some of the gun forums on the Internet. And I have
    heard from people that they are going to cut up their donor card and I
    have asked them not to until I get more information. I said I cannot
    donate because of the signs on the bus. I explained how there are gun
    organizations across the state and that it would not surprise me if a
    good percentage of the people who donate blood have that same
    mentality and are the CHP holders. They are the ones that care about
    society. They are the ones who care about life. This decision may
    have a lot more ramifications then just one individual.

    He said he had talked to other individuals who said they would abide
    by the policy. That they did not like it but understood. Others have
    said I am sorry but you have lost us as donors. So people are making
    their own individual decisions about this.

    He said, and frankly so for I have been pleased with the understanding
    level and that we have not had anyone try and overturn this by making
    people boycott the blood drives and trying to turn it into a crusade
    I think it has been well received.

    I said No, I do not think it has been well received, I just do not
    think it has been publicized.

    He said, well, every donor that comes to a blood drive sees that sign
    and to my knowledge and to the organizations knowledge, very few
    people who said they were going to cease donating blood.

    I asked, so if you got complaints from how many people… let's say…
    what would it take for you to say this is a bad policy we are losing
    to many donors? What would that magic number be?

    He said that there wasn't a magic number and that would be
    disappointing if we were going to try and grandstand on this.

    I said I wouldn't. But I would like to get the opportunity to get the
    word out there and see what the response is and not necessarily tell
    people to quit donating but to say look, ARC, this is a distinct
    possibility because this is how I feel. There are people out there
    who will kind of make complaints…but they think they are the only one.
    They do not think they have the strength.

    I said A couple of quick points. The first being the aids on the bus,
    the phlebotomists, most of them are female. I cannot think of a
    better place for a domestic dispute then a bus in the middle of a
    parking lot somewhere with one way in and one way out and very cramped
    quarters. In my mind, someone gets ticked off at their girlfriend or
    wife and decides to go on a shooting spree. That is a shooting
    gallery with one lane. One shot gun and they could clear the place
    fairly quickly and another thing is if you allow LEOs to do it as
    will, they can or can't, it is there choice. And I can't. Then in
    essence what you are really telling me is that my life is not as
    valuable as there s and it is not worth protecting.

    He said, that is not what we are saying. What we are saying is we go
    to some LEO agencies and they tell us that if you are going to get
    donations here then you have to let the LEOs be armed. and if wee
    agree to that then….and under certain circumstances we have a greed to
    that. When they are on the table I can check, but I do not believe
    they have their firearms on them when they are on the table. I think
    in the secure confines of their workspace they can put their weapons
    where….where they keep their weapons. I think that is a different
    circumstance.

    I then went into how the SCOTUS ruled that the police are not required
    to protect people. There fore self defense is every individuals
    responsibility so every individual is never off duty.

    He said, well all I can say is when the police some to an ARC blood
    drive it has been our experience that they comply with the policy. I
    cannot comment on what their rights or responsibilities are under
    those circumstances. I just don't know.

    I said is there any way around this? Could there be a specialized
    donor card for people who have CHPs? Is there a way to get around
    this? Or a way to get approval or something? Because I cannot
    co-exist with this policy impacting me and I am pretty sure there is
    quite a few other people that feel the same.

    He said, well, we have no plans at this point to change the policy.
    We have been please with the understanding that our donors have given
    to the policy and their compliance with it. That is not to say there
    are people who have torn up their donor cards based on this policy,
    but that has not been our experience. Since we have had the policy in
    place I think we have drawn about 20,000 donations and I can honestly
    say I think… I mean all of the people that have taken the time to
    complain about our policy, I am aware of 8 who have taken the trouble
    to… of making it through to make inquiries.

    I said – OK then how would I go about… You say you do not want to see
    a big movement , you say you do not want to see people boycotting or
    whatever and I can understand that because we are dealing with
    people's lives here and I can concur with that but my question for you
    is what are my options? How can I get you to change this policy?

    He said you know I don't know. I don't think we have plans the change
    the policy. I regret that you would probably in the face of this
    policy not changing we will probably lose you as a donor and that is
    very regrettable and we probable have lost some people, but to the
    extent I don't know but I am only aware of a few people who have
    ceased their donations with the Red Cross.

    I said – how may emails would you like to get? I mean I am trying to
    think of a way that I can get you to see the scope of this thing
    without hurting your clientele, the people that need the blood.
    Because that is the whole point of your existence. I don't want to
    hurt those people. I don't want to say lets start a boycott and then
    you are missing the particular type of blood you need and someone
    dies. I am not about that.

    He said I can appreciate that and I can tell you are not about that.

    I said, but I have no options. How do I fight this thing? You are
    telling me you don't know how. But any way I can think of hurts…still
    you are hurting yourself without realizing it because you are not
    seeing it directly through the numbers. Somebody that came a few
    times and they never come back again and you say well that is just
    part of the metrics and you absorb that into your metrics and you
    don't realize that want it tends to be is this new policy. So there
    is no way you can associate someone who quits donating with the new
    policy unless they specifically tell you "I am not donating any more
    because of this.

    He said they gate a lot of objections to various policies and listed
    several that were unrelated to the gun issue. But he did admit that
    there is no way to measure the donor loss based on policy changes.

    I said then at that point you are talking health issues more than
    social issues. When you made this decisions on guns you stepping into
    the social issue area. There is no medical study that going to say if
    you carry a gun in here your lead count is going to be higher
    therefore we can't accept your blood. So at this point this becomes a
    social issue. The medical issues they float. They come and go. We
    learn this then we learn something that displaces this and we are back
    to where originally and it tends to be cyclic. That is medicine,
    that's science. Textbooks change every year for reasons and I have no
    problem with that, but now you are getting into social issues that
    should not have any bearing on weather or not…. You know my gun should
    not have any bearing on weather or not I give blood.

    He said, I understand your point of view. I really do. I sincerely
    do. It is just that is what we have chosen to do at this point and as
    I say it has been administered well. There has been great acceptance
    of it, understanding of it, and very little, of the people who give
    blood on their own, objections to it. So it is not found that highly
    objectionable by the donor population.

    I said – like I said, I think it might be more objectionable to then
    you think. Probable not as objectionable to the degree I would like
    it to be because as you can tell I am very pro-gun. But I still think
    this is a solution in search of a problem. Nothing bad has happened.
    So you are making a policy… This is no different…

    He said – let me say no one has come to a blood drive and sprayed
    bullets and killed people ever either. That has never happened to my
    personal knowledge.

    I said – OK, but you can not tell me that no one has been robbed or
    assaulted either on their way to or from a blood drive or that a car
    has never been broken into while somebody was at a blood drive.

    He said – No I cannot tell you that. I am sure that has happened. I
    have been in the business 35 years and I am not aware of anyone who
    has been assaulted at a blood drive.

    I said – not at the blood drive I mean coming to or coming from so
    obviously they would not make it to the drive or they would not come
    back and say "hey, I got mugged on my way home. I did not have my gun
    with me because I left it at home so I could donate." So it is not so
    much at the blood drive. My concern is having it with me… because
    wherever you have people you have the possibility of things going bad
    and going bad quickly. To give you an example, the parking lot at
    Michaels off of I95 in Fredricksburg Virginia that is the parking lot
    where the… (and I was going to say Wash D.C. sniper hit and I choose
    that location as that is where the ARC parks the bus for some of their
    drives but he said he remembered) I explained the 2 times that I have
    gone for my gun in 10 years as an example of why it is good to have a
    gun with you at all times, but I will not bore you with the details of
    the story. I then related it to having fire and health insurances and
    then brought it back around to the gun and how it is a tool of last
    resort and when you need it you need it.

    I then asked, from several different directions, what I could do to
    get this policy changed without hurting either the ARC or the clients
    of the ARC.

    I said - Just walking away does not fix the problem….I explained, in
    more word then this, you have lost 6 months worth of donations from me
    alone. I asked him for an avenue to pursue getting this fixed.

    He said, if I wanted to I could write a letter to his attention, he
    would see it gets to the people above him and gets reviewed and that I
    get a response. (See the name title and address at the top)

    I asked if a letter would have more impact then an email and he said
    that he thought that it would.

    There was other small talk and then we hung up.

    All in all it was not only a civil conversation, but pleasurable.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I was a phoresis/platelet donor for ten years (two needles, two hours, two times per month) until the Lowcountry ARC posted against legal guns (including LEO) and ignored my protests. I know that they cannot afford to lose platelet donors and that for technical reasons recipients should recieve from as few as possible.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Have an email address for him?


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran pourshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Yes, but remember, he said hard copy would have more impact.



    RegalP at usa.redcross.org



    Guys, no hate mail. He seems very reasonable. I think he is just un / miss informed.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA, ,
    Posts
    689

    Post imported post

    Excellent interaction, pourshot. Thanks for sharing.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I have e-mailed a slightly expanded version of my comment here to Mr. Regal. If the interest continues then I will follow up through the USPS on my return home.

    It is a precept of my political activism training that print correspondence is ALWAYS more effective than virtual e-mail correspondence.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    I personally have only given blood once and never will again. I tend to pass and have even had convulsions. Even simple things like vaccinations make me want to pass out. Shoot, I'm light headed after reading all this about giving blood.

    That being said, I will never carry my gun while going in for a medical procedure. The last thing I want is to be in public, unconscious, on drugs, and having no physical way to protect my gun from unauthorized users. Be them well meaning nurses, or opportunist criminals, I don't wan't any chance of my gun getting into anybody's hands buy mine.

    That being said, I still thing ARC should change their policy. I am an exception to the rule. Most do not have problems with needles and do not need to fear passing out like I do. It should be an individual choice, ARC has no businesses making that choice for you.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    I don't/can't donate due to the fact that I lived in Great Britain between 1991 & 1993. So either way I'm "covered"

    TJ

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    I'm going to give blood today, I guess I'll see what they say when I show up... I might have to do a walk-out.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):

    14. Violence-Free Work Environment
    The Red Cross promotes a safe work environment for all employees and volunteers and does not tolerate any type of violent behavior committed by or against employees or volunteers. All Red Cross workers, regardless of their personnel category, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the Code of Conduct.

    Threatening or violent behavior committed by anyone against employees, volunteers, vendors or clients during work or off-duty hours will not be tolerated. Such behavior may include, but is not limited to, the following:
    • Physical injury to another person;
    • Threats;
    • Behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury in another person;
    • Intentionally causing damage to employer property or property of another employee or volunteer;
    • Possession of weapons (for example, guns, knives, clubs, explosive devices, etc.) on Red Cross property or while at Red Cross sponsored-activities;
    • Committing acts motivated by, or related to, sexual harassment or domestic violence.

    Management will take seriously and appropriately respond to statements or gestures that in any way suggest that the employee or volunteer may engage in violent conduct.

    Employees and volunteers on a disaster relief operation must immediately report any potentially dangerous situations or unauthorized individuals on Red Cross premises to Staff Relations and Investigations, Compliance and Ethics. Investigations, Compliance and Ethics will promptly investigate reports of statements or behavior that may violate this policy. Investigations, Compliance and Ethics will conduct all investigations in as confidential a manner as possible. An employee or volunteer suspected of violent behavior will be dismissed from the disaster relief operation and placed on a temporary inactive status during the investigation until investigations, Compliance and Ethics determines a course of action in consultation with the Staff Relations activity.
    And from their Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, Sept 1, 2005 (Policy 402.00, page 1):
    The Red Cross prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, open containers of alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on its premises.
    ...
    Staff are required to report to the department head, Human Resources, or Safety & Security Personnel any known activity that involves the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on Red Cross premises, or any person known to be involved in these activities.
    ...
    In the same document, they define premises as (Policy 401.00, Page 2 of 2, Under II Procedure, Item (f)):
    Premises include but are not limited to buildings, furniture, equipment, computers, electronic mail, voice mail, written documents, lockers, and Red Cross owned or leased vehicles.
    There's a few other policy docs at ARC that restate this policy.

    But basically, this policy is nation wide and all chapters and blood donation centers are expected to follow. If you don't see the signs everywhere, it's probably that some locations haven't gone out of their way to broadcast the policy. And it's not going to change since it's a nationwide committee of bureaucrats that would have to change their minds against major political forces.

    Your best bet is to either argue that if LEOs have been allowed, then lawabiding carriers should be allowed the exception too. And when that doesn't work, point out how the signs actually are more likely to attract a violence filled zone than prevent it and to simply take them down despite their policy.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    The Red Cross prohibits the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, open containers of alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on its premises.
    ...
    Staff are required to report to the department head, Human Resources, or Safety & Security Personnel any known activity that involves the possession, transfer, sale, or use of illegal drugs, alcohol, firearms, weapons, explosives, or other improper materials on Red Cross premises, or any person known to be involved in these activities.
    ...

    So to me this means that you, if the State allows, CAN OC AND CCW. But not ILLEGALLY.



    TJ

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Apparently to the ARC your blood is worth more than your life.

    My grandfather loathed them after the way they treated him and his fellowMarines (1/5) on Guadalcanal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Milford Colony, Montana, USA
    Posts
    145

    Post imported post

    Interesting indeed. I have not been able to donate for a few years due to overseas trips, but was about to start again. My wife gets called all the time, something about her blood type. We have a school, where we donate a couple of times a year, and a lot of the people that donate carrry (about 30 people or so). If this is indeed the case, then I could see a lot of these people, my wife included, stop donating.

    If they made my wife disarm to donate, and something happened during the time that she was not able to defend herself, then I would be they could be found liable for not providing for her security. The point about being females on the bus, and a disgruntled husband/boyfriend is a valid one.

    -CZ

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Maybe the next time an ARC van shows up somewhere, have about 10-15 people show up while OCing to donate, and see if they will all get turned away?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    ree wrote:
    FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):
    This is one of the reasons that I no longer volunteer for ARC missions, though Ihave been acertified disaster relief worker. Sorry, I'll stay home and take care of those near me.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clayton, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    Maybe the next time an ARC van shows up somewhere, have about 10-15 people show up while OCing to donate, and see if they will all get turned away?
    That is a great idea ! A opencarry.org blood drive. We should all drive to Dickenson, PA and donate there.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran pourshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    ree wrote:
    FWIW, the official American Red Cross policy (nationwide in the US) for employees and volunteers simply disallows weapons. This is from the latest copy of their Disaster Response Handbook (May 2008):

    14. Violence-Free Work Environment
    The Red Cross promotes a safe work environment for all employees and volunteers....
    But I am a Donor not a volunteer.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

    Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran pourshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

    Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.
    Consider writing a note to Paul R. His address is in the original post.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    I don't donate blood, but I do donate a lot of money to the red cross.

    Or at least, I DID. Next time they contact me for "an urgent need" for some disaster or another, I will explain how I cannot support an organization that supports the anti gun position.
    I was a 2-gallon donor over 10 years ago. Then I went to Turkey at Uncle Sam's behest, and we ate imported British beef. Several years after I returned (and had donated), the Red Cross decided I could no longer donate. Seems they turn away a lot of servicemembers and former servicemembers. Their loss.

    Then this.

    I'm no longer a Red Cross donor in any form. I've blogged it as well, so if their bots are searching (as do many organizations) they'll realize I'm not keeping it to myself either.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Apparently the Red Cross hasn't changed in the last 35-40 years. Ask a Vietnam vet how the Red Cross treated service men and women vs how they treated the hippie protestors in the airports when our soldiers were returning from war.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Spate of disasters empties Red Cross coffers

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...1&catnum=1

    De Francis said tough economic times also have cramped the generosity of individual Americans, who make up the bulk of Red Cross donors.
    There are none so blind as those who will not see. Some Americans have lost faith in the ARC.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA TSA ARC *******

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes, , USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    THANK YOU, Pourshot for taking the time and energy to find the right person at ARC and to have a productive, civil conversation with them. My hat is off to you for your depth of thought and follow-up interviewing skills. As well, politely pressing for good answers to good questions and not letting Mr. Regal off the hook with his polite, but uninformed and generalized answers.

    I used to be a blood donor and have considered doing it again, as we have lost our hospital here due to flooding in the MidWest. They are SCREAMING for donors as the complete phlebotomy lab was lost.

    ARC was one of the few agencies private or .gov that showed up while we were mucking out houses. They were offering free hot meals, which were truly appreciated in the face of this energy intensive, exhaustive work. I did not plan on taking a meal due to my $$ donation status (see below),and we had ample supplies on hand. I was handed one and it was relatively decent. Score one for ARC for showing up, when most others won't bother or don't know what to do.

    However, they have already lost me as a $$ donor just on the way they squandered $$ during Katrina and Rita. They just seemed to be in a general form of disarray. An organization so large that they seem unable to make competent, timely decisions and carry them out. This opinion is from a distance and first hand accounts of their activities in Louisianna from church members and friends there.

    I very highly doubt ARC will see me return as a $$ donor as we have found a couple of better avenues of donating $$ that are VERY closely watched and administered. One being our church, as we have a considerable presence in Louisianna and several other disaster prone states with a history of carefully doled out assistance.

    This latest silly and ignoranant (as in uninformed) maneuver of not allowing me to carry a firearm OC or CC while donating pretty well seals the deal as far as me considering donating blood again. I will not give up my ability to defend myself nor will I leave a firearm in a locked car out of my control. While I could CC deep and no one would notice, I will not donate simply on principle. If they change their policy, I'll reconsider donating blood.

    So, Mr. Regal and all involved at ARC, this is not a boycott on my part, but a decision based on me being able to defend myself from the time I leave my house to the time I return. My sidearm is most certainly my absolute last resort defense tool, but when I need it, I NEED it... and so might you. You are losing an untold number of people who are well trained (not just firearms), very aware of their surroundings and know what to do in an emergency. It seems odd indeed, considering your mission, that ARC would usher this type of citizen from its midst.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I guess I'm just going to have to keep my O-negative blood for myself, sad to say.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •