Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
Some folks don't seem to understand that because something is legal doesn't mean it is wise and arguing that it is not wise is NOT the same as arguing that it should be illegal.
Some such people may exist, but they don't seem to have posted in this thread much, if at all. Like free speech, the exercise of the right can be profoundly stupid, but still defensible as a legitimate exercise of the right.
Whether exercise of a right is wise, whether it is irresponsible, and whether it jeopardizes the RKBA all seem distinguishable.
What we do see early in the thread is the anxiety that exercise of the right in a manner that records the police response, referred to in this thread as "activism", to it will result in political curtailment of the exercise of the right. We are assured that there is a history of activism leading to statutory restriction, but we also have contrary experience of the activism as an outgrowth of the political support for a greater freedom for legal carry.
The proposition set forth by Rob Pincus in the OP strikes many as counter-intuitive and its support in recent history appears ambiguous.
What I believe we agree we do have is a history of POs responding to legal open carry agressively and even improperly, with a more recent trend of POs video of whom shows an intelligent, diplomatic and reasonable approach.
For those who are uncomfortable with videorecording PO responses to exercise of a right, what is the better way to educate PDs and the public about the benign nature of exercise of the right?