Is this fallacious?

Something I've been hearing a lot lately in arguments is this phenomenon of people presenting a counter argument to a position held by a particular group, but qualifying the argument with the fact that the person presenting the counter argument is a part of the same group.

For example, Person A and Person B are both members of the NRA. Person A is against all forms of gun control legislation. Person B, however, is open to certain types of gun control legislation.

Person A: "I am against gun control because we have a constitutional right to bear arms."

Person B: "As a member of the NRA, I recognize the need for common sense regulations on firearms that both protect our constitutional rights and keep us safe."

Maybe this is just me over thinking the argument, but it feels like the counter argument is being based around being part of the same group, and it feels like Person B is implying that because they are a member of the NRA, their position is more valid as a dissent.

Really interested in hearing what everyone else has to say.

When people hold views that are often seen as in conflict with those by the group to which they belong, they are viewed as more credible and their argument is given more credibility. This is what Aristotle referred to when he spoke of "pathos" (the credibility of the person making the argument). This is a reasonable conclusion because it effectively provides strong evidence that such an argument is not biased—at least not because of one's group affiliation. It would be like a mother admitting that her child is not very smart... if a mother does that, you can bet that the kid really isn't that smart! This is still not an argument, however. Just like your example:

Person B: "As a member of the NRA, I recognize the need for common sense regulations on firearms that both protect our constitutional rights and keep us safe."

They are not making an argument; they are expressing their opinion. Again, all we can do is reasonably rule out one source of bias—their NRA affiliation. Whereas we cannot rule out that bias with Person A. Therefore, all other things being equal, Person B's opinion is the more credible one if nothing else is known about the persons or the topic on which the opinion is being expressed. Here is another example void of politics or religion:

Person A and B both strongly support person X.
Person A says person X did a bad thing.
Person B says person X would never do such a bad thing.

Since we have no way of knowing if person X did a bad thing, all we have to go on is the testimonies from persons A and B. Knowing what we know about bias, person B is more likely to be demonstrating bias than person A. This is a probability call.

So in summary, holding a position against that of your ingroup only means that we can rule out a bias for your ingroup leading you to your opinion; it does not make it more valid, right, true, etc.

1. This is the Second Amendment in its entirety:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2. In the 1780s, the meaning of the Second Amendment would be straight forward.

3. Nowadays-- thanks to Bill Clinton, Obama, and the DNC federal judges--- there is debate on these words:
a. A
b. Well
c. regulated
e. Militia
f. being
g. necessary
h. to
i. the
j. security
h. of
j. free
k. State
l. right
m. people
n. keep
o. bear
n. Arms
p. shall
q. not
r. be
s. infringed

Interestingly, there is also heated debate on the punctuation points used in the Second Amendment and how the way it's punctuated changes the meaning of the Second Amendment. And what it "really" means is that only the federal Military and federal para-military can own Arms. This argument is used a lot by the DNC, Antifa, BLM.

No, I don't think this is a fallacy, necessarily. Using your example, the individual may simply wish to side-track a likely negative response by reminding the other that they still have a very similar stance (have significant "common ground"). Yet, I will admit that one's belonging to a particular group has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of a given argument.

I guess I'll add something, if I may. ..related to the specific example cited. I happen to lean toward the general stance of the NRA. Please consider:

1. Those who argue that it only pertains to members of the militia seem to have forgotten that--in those days--most every Joe Doaks WAS a member of the militia (thus denotes the General Citizenry).

2. The U.S. Constitution was a work of great compromise (composed by a committee), and reflects some serious "quirks." Most prominent among these, surely, was the (damned) provision about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.

3. In those days of British oppression, being armed was one bulwark against that oppression.

4. Though, in recent times, there is--seems to me--enormous support of the national government (and for government in general), in colonial times, there was a great skepticism and distrust of government. If you have a reasonable background in history and political science, you--no doubt--are familiar with the "Federalist Papers." Yet, there were many patriots who took issue with the "federalist" position reflected in the Constitution. In fact, a pretty good book (one copy is next to my bed!) is "The Antifederalists." Many who did support ratification did so ONLY after the the addition of the "Bill of Rights!!!" Throughout our history, there has been considerable abridgment of our rights (and particularly of some demographic segments of our society, such as minority groups). To cite just a couple of examples, I've had friends who've had their cars stolen by local gov't over a minor infraction, and others who happened to have some cash on their person (perhaps in expectation of the purchase of a used automobile) confiscated by federal or local officials (under "Asset Forfeiture" provisions). Of course, in criminal cases, "trumped up charges" are not all that uncommon.

We also have witnessed the burgeoning of such things as “administrative law courts,” which certainly smack of the many legal injustices under which the colonists suffered, and were described as “jurisdictions which are alien to us”…and also of oppressive forms of legal process, such as “writs of assistance.” Today, under the terrible Patriot Act, there are many illegal searches and seizures, as well as arrests, interrogations and “rendering” of suspects to other countries. Whatever happened to the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Pretty scary stuff.

I suppose I could add that in early days (even after passage of the Constitution), the Declaration of Independence was considered a "founding document" of the USA. In recent years, I have found a number of teachers, politicians and historians who deny this, and insist that--TODAY--this document has no more than some (pretty much insignificant) historical value. I take strong issue with this, and partly because this piece of parchment mandated that the ONLY LEGITIMATE government is one formed and supported by the PEOPLE, and averted that ALL MEN are to be considered equal, and afforded equal rights. It also refers to "Natural Rights," a concept with which MANY in Washington, today, are very uncomfortable. I am not simply "blowing smoke" here. Only very occasionally will this phrase be heard in Congress (e.g., during a Supreme Court nominee review), and the room will suddenly become very quiet (with a few people coughing and making other sounds of embarrassment). These people DO NOT support the idea of Natural Rights, yet this was a KEY element of our revolution and the founding of these "United States."

ON THE OTHER HAND, probably MANY folks who now have firearms have no business owning them.

I'd say that Person B's statement is a non sequitur, and that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

"I take strong issue with this, and partly because this piece of parchment mandated that the ONLY LEGITIMATE government is one formed and supported by the PEOPLE, and averted that ALL MEN are to be considered equal, and afforded equal rights."

Naturally, I meant "asserted!!"

I 'spose I could add one other thing. On some "Progressive" radio outlets, there has been a lot of caviling about how terrible some of our nation's Founders have been (Capitalists and Hypocrites), in view of certain facts, such as their owning slaves....then, the, narrative goes, this nation has--from the very start--been totally corrupt. These facts concern me, but I think this is an overreaction...and the weaknesses of these men does not negate the American "Great Experiment," though we have--admittedly--at times, fallen far from the our original ideals. At its best, the U.S. of A. has been a pretty amazing creation.