From my reading, the author's epiphany was to shift the debate away from substance towards a contest along the linear social dominance hierarchy by trying to ou

From my reading, the author's epiphany was to shift the debate away from substance towards a contest along the linear social dominance hierarchy by trying to out-alpha his opponent, making him his beta bitch. How shocking that this came from the gun-fetish demographic. (And I say that as a supporter of the 2nd amendment.) I feel that this technique is orthogonal to the topic of the debate. A more dominant and rhetorically skilled opponent might have similarly stopped the debate in its tracks by insisting that the author loved guns because he was a chicken. Then, regardless of the response, reply with "Bock bock bock b'cak!" This is the author's moment of enlightenment? I don't want people like this on my side of the gun debate.