Uncle Billy, you act as though WWP is the only game in town. If it were, that might change things. It is not, so your argument is self-serving but wrong.
If I am interested in supporting better health care for poor families, I can choose between any number of organizations. I wish to avoid some issues that would devolve, rapidly, so I'm going to make one up... let's say that on the one hand, an organization stipulates that it will not be associated with the military, because military forces worldwide have been used to suppress the poor. Another organization, that helps provide health care for the poor, is willing to participate in fund-raising publicity with military units.
I'm a veteran and a retiree. Is it unreasonable for me to give my donations to the organization that seems to like the military, instead of the one that seems to blame the military for some of the ills with which it has to contend? Should I be embarrassed or ashamed to admit to the reason for my preference?
That, in a nutshell, is what you are claiming. I'm a gun owner and an RKBA advocate. (I'm also a veteran and retiree, and current contractor in the sandbox.) The WWP is not the only game in town. There are other organizations that perform similar functions, that don't explicitly or implicitly cast aspersions on firearms and firearm ownership. Why should I choose WWP over any of them?
I find your argument unsupportable.