Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • TM_2PWRR

    Not blog bashing here, but what’s with all the SSD reposts lately…?

  • Zachary marrs

    Wow, low drag, when can we expect the wind tunnel test?

    • ed

      I’m thinking those windows would actually increase drag when compared to solid walls.

    • Asdf

      I’m more thinking what a royal pain in the rear to remove that from a rail.

  • echelon

    For $150 that thing better also be able to take out the garbage and walk my dog…sheesh.

    If we weren’t taxed out of our brains I bet you in reality that thing costs $5, if that…

    • Paul Epstein

      We’re not taxed, as a country, in any way that would make it cost $150- if they’re pricing it at that point, it’s because they think that’s how they’re going to make the most money, and for literally no other reason. Please learn how taxes work before ranting about them.

      • echelon

        Ok, you must live on another planet than I do. Our forefathers were killing redcoats for being taxed less than we are…

        Please don’t presume to know that I don’t know how taxes work before you go trying to clonk me on the head.

        Riddle me this: since when did wages become “income”? Hmmm….

        • Paul Epstein

          We are taxed on income- income taxes do not change prices, because the ideal selling point, where the company is obtaining the most total net revenue, HAS NOT CHANGED. The amount the owners receive from the company’s activities is reduced by income taxes, but the company still needs to operate efficiently according to market dynamics in a way completely unaffected by an income tax.

          So no, you don’t understand how taxes work if you’re stating income tax has made this cost $150 instead of $5. There’s no way you’d say something that stupid if you KNEW how stupid it sounded.

          And they’ve always been income, you retard. Income = incoming money = money coming in. If you have more than you started with, it’s income. The fact that the money coming in, the income, is paid for labor has nothing to do with it.

          If you have a degree, or for that matter a high school diploma, it should be immediately taken from you because you obviously didn’t obtain it legitimately.

          • echelon

            Wages are due you. You exchange your time and talents for money. That is not “income”. Income is not just money coming in. Income, historically, has been money that you’ve made on the sale of an asset or interest.

            And yes if the tax burden increases on a business that means they may have to charge more for their product or service to stay alive. Why do you think there has been all of the stink in the news about companies wanting to exit the US and move their headquarters to other countries?

            And you put words into my mouth, I never stated just “income taxes’, did I? There’s sales taxes, death taxes, estate taxes, property taxes, vehicle taxes, use taxes, etc.

            The shallowest possible point I was trying to make was that it wasn’t too long ago that everything was cheaper. Sure there are various economic forces that contribute to the changing in markets but government actions play a huge role. If they’d get the heck out of the way I guarantee you that prices would be much much lower.

            And thanks for the witty banter. I love it when anonymous people call me a retard and put my education, or lack thereof, into question on a forum post. Would you talk to someone like that face to face?

            I could make a comment out government education here, or the simple difference between wages and income, but out of respect for you, I will kindly refrain.

          • Paul Epstein

            If you want to use a definition of ‘income’ that is WRONG for most of our history and pretty much only exists in order to try and make a nitpick argument for your case, sure. Most of human history has consisted of getting part of what you have made taken away from you by the government- the first writings describe exactly that with farmers getting a portion of their income taken away.

            And for the last time- it does not work that way. If a business can increase the price of their goods and make more money, they should already be doing that or they’re simply bad at business. You increase your prices until it cuts into your sales enough that further increases in price would decrease your total revenue. No legitimate business should be ABLE to respond in the way you’re claiming income taxes would make them, and it wouldn’t do them any good because they’re going to simply be taxed on whatever additional money was made. THAT, alone, is why I’m calling you names. If you don’t understand how prices work, you shouldn’t be in charge of a business, hell, you shouldn’t work for a business in any way involving prices.

            Everything used to be cheaper because of inflation, not taxes. There was less money going around, and regardless of your thoughts on that, it is NOT TAXES. And you do realize that income taxes, especially when considering inflation have been going DOWN since the 1950s, right? We had a top income bracket of 90% then, starting at 250,000 a year. It’s all been downhill from there except for a very slight bump just recently, that shouldn’t affect you, or this business. Your ‘shallowest’ point is so shallow it clearly indicates you aren’t in the habit of actually learning things before talking about them.

            And yes, I would say this to your face. Internet tough guy aside, you’re saying really stupid things and while I might be a bit nicer, since I’d presumably know you personally, you’re not even slightly correct about anything and I think you deserve to know that.

            Your difference between wages and income is bullshit, an illusion, an attempt to redefine words in such a way that even though you’re wrong in any rational sense, you can keep arguing on technicalities. People have ALWAYS had portions of what they have earned legitimately, as production or wages, taken away as taxes. That we currently call that practice income tax does not somehow magically mean it’s a new thing, just because at some point they didn’t call wages income. You would HAVE TO be poorly educated or just plain disabled to not have grasped that in economics classes- or are economics and business classes one of those ‘government education’ things whatever you claim as education didn’t bother to teach?

          • gunslinger

            http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/wages.htm

            just going to leave this hear about income vs wages

          • Paul Epstein

            Thanks. I know he won’t read it, or will reject it out of hand, probably spouting something about ‘activist judges’ while doing so, but it provides a much more detailed and better thought out argument for what I’ve been saying.

          • echelon

            There have been many types of governmental experiments throughout the ages and in some cases, yes, actual production was taken or “taxed” but it’s not always so. And even if it’s “always been that way” does not make it lawful, right or legitimate.

            But if you go back into Common Law and in various other places and you’ll see that it is not I that have redefined the terms “income” and “wages”. Look it up in Black’s Dictionary some time…

            In American history alone wages were not always taxed. Income was indeed redefined so that the government could now tax your wages.

            And in a business sense I’m talking more about how it all affects the cost of goods sold, rather than an actual direct tax on the business per se. But that still does come into play.

            Lastly, I think I’m glad I don’t know you personally. I typically don’t associate with people who are so quick to name me as a mental defective.

          • Paul Epstein

            Income didn’t NEED to be redefined for the government to tax your wages. Implying that they couldn’t tax it if they didn’t engage in exactly the sort of stupid word play you’re doing is itself so stupid as to be incompatible with someone who is not an idiot. Basic observation of how our government works clearly indicates that what you said makes no goddamn sense- are you literally incapable of the very simple observations and logical progression which renders what you said clearly false?

            Yes, wages were not always taxed- neither were several categories of monetary gain which are currently taxed. They were still, by a reasonable definition of the term, income. Income is not inherently or linguistically limited to this huge category of ‘not wages’, and all you can prove at this point is that the examples used to illustrate what that is have changed over time. And unless the dictionary definition you’re using specifically and unequivocally states that wages CANNOT be income, then you have no argument whatsoever.

            Finally, in a business sense, you’re still 100% incorrect about the effect of an income tax on the cost of goods sold, or for that matter any tax whatsoever aside from a value added tax or sales tax, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE NATIONALLY, on the cost of goods sold. When we’re talking overall revenue, the market and the market alone determines the price the business should set to make the most money.

            If the government was to set the income tax to 99%, or 0%, it would still have absolutely no effect on the price of any item, or this one. It would not even influence whether the business remains in the black or goes into the red overall. What it does influence is how much money the owner is able to take home at the end of the day. If you’re suggesting that if we didn’t have income taxes, the business owner would price things lower in a deliberately sub-optimal manner for the business, then you really, truly, are an idiot.

            Frankly, if I knew you personally, I’d have made sure you wouldn’t have listened to whatever dumbasses convinced you of all these obviously wrong things you seem to believe. And we’d get along fine.

          • echelon

            Basically, TL;DR. I see you start insulting my intelligence again, so we’ll just leave it at that.

            You’re obviously content to read something somewhere and blindly accept it as truth, that’s cool with me.

            Words not univocal they’re equivocal so just because someone says one thing doesn’t mean that, used in that particular sense, it doesn’t mean the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the word normally means. Read any freaking statute or book of law and you would know this to be true.

            They literally have to define each term before they get to the body of the statute because they redefine each word to have a special meaning for the purpose of the statute.

            You obviously seem to be fine with that practice…so be it.

            And as far as taxes not affecting the price of goods…well…I won’t even begin to touch that one. Good day to you sir.

          • Paul Epstein

            Yes, I am fine with the practice of reading in a way you seem to not be. I read things, I think about them and how they would affect the world around me, and then if the effects I would expect to see are present or not present, then that determines whether I accept them as truth. You should try it some time.

            And as far as not touching on the taxes affecting the price of goods… too late. That was the entire point of the conversation until you thought it was a good idea to be even more wrong talking about income taxes.

            You still haven’t explained HOW that would work, while I’ve clearly delineated the argument as to why it can’t possibly be the case. If you wanted to have an intelligent debate, you would have actually had to support your argument with facts or reasoning- and we both know you don’t have any, you’ve simply accepted something as truth and refused to consider whether it’s actually the case.

            I tend to insult people who do that. It’s better than the alternative of collapsing in despair that people like you are walking around and voting.

          • echelon

            You’re trying to make this direct link to the price of the item and some exact tax itself. I’m talking about the entire milieu or environment that would affect the business and potentially cause the cost of the item to go up in price.

            For instance, if all of a business’s employees are getting taxed then that means they are potentially taking home less take home pay, which means they will not be able to buy as many things. This may lead to the business having to pay its workers more money, thus the cost of goods sold will ultimately rise, thus an increase in product cost overall.

            How am I not being clear on this? Why were brand new cars $5000 – $10,000 a short time ago historically speaking and now they’re $25,000 – $50,0000? And you still haven’t explained to me why, if I’m wrong, that companies all over the US are trying to leave to get out of the extremely large tax burden, which you seem to think is so pathetically low?

            http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_on_price.html

            And as far as how you opened your reply here, it’s obvious you’re not as smart as you think you are. Words have meaning, regardless of how you feel about it, or how it seems to be affecting the world around you. Truth is true even if nobody believes it.

            So when you read some IRS or other form that defines “wages” as “income” you must uncritically go, “gosh well if the IRS says wages are taxable income then by golly it must be true.”

            But look – honestly this has been beaten dead. I hope and pray that in the future you may learn to communicate more thoughtfully and rationally with people. It works extremely well, rather than being a complete and utter jackhole to people.

          • Paul Epstein

            Look, your statement was that if we didn’t have (as great of) taxes, it would cost less than 4% of it’s current price. If you want to claim that wasn’t to be taken literally, feel free, but it’s what you fucking said.

            Secondly, you don’t understand basic supply and demand. If the employees have LESS money, that means they cannot buy an item which costs more, and therefore the company producing that item must put it on sale, or REDUCE the price, in order to make money. You don’t increase prices when your customers have less money unless you want to go out of business.

            And you seriously don’t get why a car with far more airbags, far more electronics, far, far better engineering, and so on, costs more, AND when we’ve had significant explaining, except to claim that it’s somehow a response to taxes? That is willfully absurd!

            YES, companies are trying to leave the US because of our tax burden, but it’s not because ours went up! It’s because there are countries like Ireland who are willing to set taxes to ZERO with the right accounting or agreements. We’ve decreased it, they’ve decreased it far faster.

            Smart means thinking things through, thinking ABOUT them, and looking at all possible answers to determine which is most probably the case. You don’t do that. You don’t seem to have ever done that. You are regurgitating bullshit you were TOLD by someone with an agenda, and you haven’t thought about it a single second or this would all be clear.

            Go fuck yourself with your platitudes- I’m speaking to you as a rational individual who actually knows a goddamn thing about the subject at hand and is trying to correct some gross misinformation. No wonder you’re so dismissive of education if you’re so incredibly willfully ignorant.

          • echelon

            Are you still at this? What are you trying to prove now? You think I’m a retarded troglodyte, I get it. Move on now, please.

            We’re obviously just talking past one another now so just let it be.

            It’s funny that I’ve been apparently brainwashed by people with an agenda, but it’s quite obvious that you haven’t…

            I’ll let my statements stand as they are, ignorant or insightful, let others be the judge and your comments will be likewise.

            Sound good to you?

  • Piccolo

    Fortis F1 is moar lighter at half the cost.

    • Jared

      But not quick detach

  • John Yossarian

    Sexy, but not at that ridiculous price! I went with the Lion Gears riser ($16, 1.5 oz) for an Aimpoint Micro on a $1,700 AR. The 0.75″ height gives an absolute co-witness – Just FYI.

  • Dan

    Pretty spendy piece of aluminum.

  • valorius

    $149 for a mount…..lmfao