“There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” he wrote. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’”Instead, he writes, “the right to live is supreme over any other.”
I’m going to take the Congressman at his word that he believes “the right to live is supreme over any other.” If he does, then the right to do whatever it takes to defend against someone taking that life is also equally supreme.
That’s not a “moral equivalence”, that is simply a logical conclusion. A simple deductive exercise:
If the right to life is supreme, and when something is defined as “supreme”, it is above all others – it’s worth is incalculable, then defense of the right to life must also be supreme (i.e. above all others), for if such a defense is not justified, then the right to life is not actually supreme (i.e. above all others).
My guess is that Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California hasn’t thought this all the way through.