I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.
I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.
That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.
The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context. It's not apples to apples. As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal". The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder. I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks. Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold. That's what we ASK. That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt. The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND. That's the difference.
OK, still doesn't change the fact that lawyers—shockingly—can discourse on the various ethical merits of the laws and legal arguments with which they engage. I know for a fact it can happen—my girlfriend is currently in law school!!!
It also seems like something of a non sequitur to bring up how you are forced to go about engaging with "the law" when I made a broader point, one with which I am sure you agree: legal does not always mean moral. And moreover, I completely disagree with you on the subject of "I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks." It's that sort of laissez-faire attitude that gets people killed. If you see people acting in a way you find unethical, by all means shout, vote, talk to your senator, or, even, in certain cases, act violently (which in many cases is illegal).
We disagree on this. Vehemently. Whether I find homosexuality "immoral" or not (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell <insert homosexual person yuo know here> what to do with their partner in the bedroom. Whether I find pornography to be immoral, or the practice of producing porn unethical (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell you what you can watch in your quietest of moments, or whether - with consent (a rights issue, not a moral or ethical one) - you can film your girlfriend in flagrante delicto.
I don't know what you mean by "getting people killed"; if someone dies, it's no longer a moral or ethical thing, it's a civil rights thing. For me, whether it's a lawyer, a politician, or someone else, the "ethical" argument for practical legal positions is, more often than not, the argument of the weak. For me, ANY of the so-called ethical arguments we can talk about boil down also to some infringement on rights, and that's where the DEMAND comes from.
Again, we're talking about what we can (or should) FORCE someone else to do.
And the tragedy of the commons is a bogus idea anyway...
Well, provably false, but okay. "Climate change" is but one of many, obvious, egregious examples of that idea. Climate change is bogus?
Edit: Also, the idea that right and wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder has to prove, after a moment's thought, specious. This is not to say I have a comprehensive ethical philosophy worked out, but relativism just seems so obviously wrong.
So who, then, gets to decide? And are you willing to live by that yourself? There's NOTHING you find perfectly acceptable that someone, somewhere (left or right) would deem problematic?