A political battle is a "war" of sorts, in which the sought spoils become the hearts and minds of the governed. Truth is the first casualty in war, and that's by design, rather than a product of happenstance and chance. It is also understood in warfare that it is much easier to conquer a force already divided than a cohesive, unified one. So, if the tyranical usurption of liberty was something I was personally passionate enough to invest my time, talent, and treasure in, I would absolutely consider paying people to post rhetoric in support of my aims on shooting and outdoor sports websites like this one. It's easier to take away something if people are willing to give it up, after all. Swaying public opinion in aveneues of social discorse helps make the non-committed into willing victims.
Anti-liberty tyrants would certainly see value in "planted posters" on sites like this and moreso now, because they see the pro-Second Amendment opoosition as fragmented and weak already -or did, until very recently. Were that not so, they wouldn't have been so bold in boasting about "breaking the back of the Gun Lobby" or so publicly giddy over the prospect of acheiving that goal here of late.
They aren't far wrong. I personally know several avid shooters who have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, limits on magazine capacity, or the vilification of arms on the basis of a military or paramilitary aesthetic. These folks fully support "sensible gun laws." They do not believe the Second Amendment was intended to grant citizens the right to open or concealed carry, to own semi-automatic variants of the U.S. Military's main individual combat weapon, or to own a handgun capable of holding more rounds in its magazine than a standard, single-column magazine in a 1911 pistol holds. Some of them don't see the Second Amendment as a realistic deterrent to government tyrany in the modern era, citing the notion that individuals with small arms stand no chance against a government in contol of one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, with all of the weapons systems at its disposal that such superpower status implies.
There are lots of avid shooters in this country who DO think assault rifle bans, bans on private party transfers, registration, licensing of gun owners, and such are not only "reasonable" but "desireable." Anti liberty tyrants in political power know those folks exist and they know they visit and post on sites like this one. It isn't a secret to them. They know they already have allies among gun owners who are willing to help further their agenda. Planting a few "puddin' stirrers" thus serves to maintain the division that they see as already existing and helps prevent cohesiveness from taking root.
There are plenty of avid, high-volume shooters who don't think anyone should own an AR-15 and are deluded into believing that nobody in positions of government power would ever see their Perazzi shotgun as an evil instrument in need of confiscation and destruction. There are some military match highpower shooters I know personally who were pissed at various pro-Second Amendment groups for standing against the prohibition of private party transfers, having the attitude of throwing the antis a bone to keep them from going after their collection of AR-15 A2's and magazines.
How many times have you heard "Nobody needs an assault rifle or a combat pistol for huntin'" come from the mouth of a gun owner?
The Anti's already have gun owners on their side who support some of their agenda. They post their opinions on sites like this without getting paid, with no organized backing from somewhere else, doing so as individuals exercising their First Amendment right. But knowing that doesn't mean they think it would be pointless to have "paid plants" posting, too. Its all the more reason why they should, and would be stupid not to.
