Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon Sells Out Predator Drone Toy After Mocking Reviews

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the general-tron's-secret-police-confession-kit dept.

Government 147

parallel_prankster writes "Amazon users are addressing the drone controversy with sarcasm. Maisto International Inc.'s model Predator drones are selling out on Amazon.com Inc.'s website as parody reviews highlight how the toys can help children hone killing skills, mocking a controversial U.S. practice. The toy is a replica of the RQ-1 Predator, an unmanned aircraft that the U.S. Air Force has used in combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq and Yemen, according to the product description on Amazon. Only one of the $49.99 military-style toy jets is available for purchase on Amazon's site, which is brimming with assessments laced with dark humor. 'You can't spell slaughter without laughter,' one pithy joker wrote."

cancel ×

147 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome (2)

basicasic (1185047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929015)

Just f***ing awesome. Haha.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929071)

let's train the next generation of constitutional violators. from my cold dead hands!

Re:Awesome (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929627)

How does "mocking" violate your constitutional rights to own a Predator drone?

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929819)

Different AC here, but I think they mean the President violating the constitution with extrajudicial murder, not that the mocking is a violation.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929957)

Different AC here, but I think they mean the President violating the constitution with extrajudicial murder, not that the mocking is a violation.

I assume so as well. It goes along well with the sentiments expressed in the top Amazon review (at the moment):

This goes well with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!

I prefer to refer to this as "violating their rights" -- too many so-called "constitutionalists" forget that the writers of the Constitution they cherish were convinced that those rights were not rights granted by the Constitution, they were the rights of all men, everywhere, and the job of government was to protect those already existing natural rights, not to grant them through some legal fiction. If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.

Re:Awesome (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930325)

If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.

What's interesting is that we do behave properly with regards to some rights, for example freedom of speech which is protected the same for citizens and not, unlike the UK.

Re:Awesome (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930711)

too many so-called "constitutionalists" forget that the writers of the Constitution they cherish were convinced that those rights were not rights granted by the Constitution, they were the rights of all men, everywhere

Those same constitutionalists would claim that Iranians have no right to weapons.

I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.

Re:Awesome (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931315)

I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons

No, but every non-violent peace-abiding person does have a right to self-defense, and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).

Re:Awesome (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931533)

and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).

Absolutely.

We agree that there is a line, above which a weapon is not for civilians and below which it is a right. So now we only have to set that line.

I'm a legal firearms owner since the late 1970s (before that if you count the .22 that my dad gave me when I was 10). The only weapon that I own that is for defense is my Franchi Instinct (endorsed for home defense by Vice President Biden).

I'm glad that you don't assert that the right to defense protected by the Constitution has anything to do with protection from the government.

Re:Awesome (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932775)

and thus to self-defense tools (but obviously, not to WMD's).

Absolutely.

We agree that there is a line, above which a weapon is not for civilians and below which it is a right. So now we only have to set that line.

I'm a legal firearms owner since the late 1970s (before that if you count the .22 that my dad gave me when I was 10). The only weapon that I own that is for defense is my Franchi Instinct (endorsed for home defense by Vice President Biden).

I'm glad that you don't assert that the right to defense protected by the Constitution has anything to do with protection from the government.

The only weapon that I own that is for defense is, well, pretty much everything I can lay hands on. If you get to the point where you need a firearm for defense, you've likely avoided using your brain and your body first.

When you get to the point where killing/maiming at a distance, or at least the threat of this, is absolutely necessary, you've got to the point where you need an offensive weapon, because anything else won't be effective enough against your attacker without preparation. At which point, you're no longer really defending yourself. Instead, you're protecting yourself from perceived threat with an offensive weapon.

Strangely, despite some of the places I've been, I've never had to resort to weapons to defend myself beyond my tongue, feet and hands (in that order). None of these will stand up against an APC, drone or aircraft carrier; all will work 90% of the time in civilian life (and for that 10%, you still need to have predicted the situation, meaning that you likely could have at least mitigated it to some degree instead of letting it get to the point where potentially lethal force is both available and effective).

Short answer: if we really want the ability to defend ourselves, we need more access to firehoses (sure, it can still be lethal, but it's more likely to deter an attacker than a gun or knife, and less likely to cause permanent harm to anyone).

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

rohan972 (880586) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931341)

I'm not convinced anyone has a god-given right to weapons.

Leaving aside the issue of "god-given", surely everyone has a right to defend their own life. Whether they have a right to weapons is dependent on whether they need weapons to defend their life.

Being larger and stronger than average, if I attacked someone smaller I could be regarded as a lethal threat. In a one on one encounter, about 80% of the population would need a weapon to defend themselves from me. Since there is no way I can be required to become weaker (although that will eventually happen through age), then a weapons ban in practice means large people and trained fighters have the right to self defense and smaller weaker people do not. I do not find this to be equitable.

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931565)

if I attacked someone smaller I could be regarded as a lethal threat. In a one on one encounter, about 80% of the population would need a weapon to defend themselves from me.

But I assume that they would not need a 30-round clip.

Recently, I heard a caller on right-wing talk radio talking about the reason his wife needs a large-clip semi-automatic "assault-style" rifle for personal defense. "This way, she doesn't have to worry so much about aiming. See, she's not a very good shot, see."

I find it worrisome that someone would believe that the solution to being a poor shot is more firepower, when we're talking about a policy that affects, by necessity, densely populated parts of the country as well as rural America.

A woman who's a bad shot "protecting her family" with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip is by definition a social problem.

Re:Awesome (2)

buybuydandavis (644487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931977)

If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.

The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.

Re:Awesome (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932813)

If you're in favor of treating non-citizens any differently than citizens with regards to rights, you're opposed to the principles the Constitution was written to uphold.

The US Constitution is a government, of, by, and for the citizens of the United States. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. It was not the global police force, and not even the police force of everyone living in the US.

The US Constitution is not a government. It is a document of agreement about what is just and right. If you treat one person differently than another, you're talking contract, by-law or policy, and not constitution.

Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human, and thus what is just and right for you is not the same as what is just and right for them -- and this is exactly the type of fascism that the US constitution was drafted to prevent. This has nothing to do with enforcing such views outside of one's own borders -- but it has everything to do with how a country governed by such a constitution treats humanity as a whole. Weasel out of a part of it, and the entire structure collapses. I believe this is partly what the civil war was about, wasn't it (other than money and politics)?

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932589)

Oh, and if it was a manned aircraft doing airstrikes then it would somehow be different? Give me a break. It's contrived controversy here. Drones have no legal distinction from any other military instrument.

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931317)

"How does "mocking" violate your constitutional rights to own a Predator drone?"

I don't know about rights, but I don't understand how someone could see the drone killings as "controversial" at all. According to treaty and international law, it's murder. Plain and simple. No room for much in the way of real controversy.

Re:Awesome (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931505)

Murder, absolutely. No less or more than Hiroshima or Dresden.

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932117)

"Murder, absolutely. No less or more than Hiroshima or Dresden."

I disagree completely. There might be moral arguments made to that effect, but I was referring to legality.

Hiroshima and Dresden were both acts of war, and neither were violations of then-current international law for war. (One might argue about who started the war but that's another matter.) Neither of those were considered "illegal", as acts of war, until after the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Drone killing, on the other hand, is killing, yet it is not a legal act of war or, legally, "justifiable self-defense" by our own law. It is an act specifically prohibited by treaty, and both U.S. and international law. Therefore it is legally murder.

Re:Awesome (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932289)

There might be moral arguments made

That's all I'm qualified to do.

Re:Awesome (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931321)

He isn't talking about the 2nd Amendment, he's talking about the use of drones to violate constitutionally described natural rights.

Re:Awesome (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931543)

Got it.

I was responding to the folks that were fist-bumping the fact that the Predator models sold out on Amazon, despite being (quite rightly) mocked.

Re:Awesome (-1, Troll)

Javagator (679604) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930151)

Obama is almost as bad as Lincoln who killed all those American citizens in the 1860's without trial just because they were wearing Confederate Army uniforms.

Re:Awesome (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929127)

Now Johnnie and Susie have another toy to celebrate their gradual development in our new, post-Orwellian future!

I thought that having just this one was somehow, inadequate:
http://www.amazon.com/PLAYMOBIL&%23174;-36138-Playmobil-Security-Check/product-reviews/B0002CYTL2 [amazon.com]

Now? We need an EasyBake Backscatter nudity scanner, a "pat down" edition of "Operation" and a GI Joe Seal Team Six bin Laden's Lair play set.

Duty Now For The Future!

Re:Awesome (2)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929989)

a GI Joe Seal Team Six bin Laden's Lair play set

Actually, that would be cool...

Re:Awesome (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930599)

Did they find dialysis equipment on the site in Abbatobad?

Otherwise, you know they shot-up a decoy, which would explain the burial-at-sea, without genetic testing, etc.

De-Evolution (1)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930359)

All this secret agent man bullshit is giving me a swelling itching brain, and makes me want to clockout.

Re:De-Evolution (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930617)

Twist away the gates of steel, Got an urge I wanna purge 'Cause I'm losing control...

Re:De-Evolution (1)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931323)

:-)

Re:Awesome (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931243)

That is simultaneously very funny, and very sad.

Thanks /. (1, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929019)

We helped sell that last toy jet! I love it how we just stuck it to corporate america, down with the man! *runs, ducks*

Re:Thanks /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929213)

Someone has to supply the ironic gift market

Re:Thanks /. (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929595)

but it's not a jet.. it's a propeller plane. the fucking toy even has the propeller. so wtf, why does this article exist and what the fuck is it doing here?

Re:Thanks /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932309)

Amen to that. RQ-1's also don't carry missiles, MQ-1's and MQ-9's do.

Stand by ... (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929031)

... for a press release from the Iranian Air Force about their newest UAV development.

Re:Stand by ... (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929973)

Uh huh. Iranian Air Force is not best Air Force, you know.

they need... (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929051)

...supreme court dolls.

You pull a string, and they say things like:

"The supreme court can modify the constitution because the supreme court says so"

"interstate, intrastate, meh. Get me a bagel."

"public use means where people can see it."

"ex post facto, ex post schmacto. It's simply retroactive."

"It's not additional punishment if we say it isn't."

"Double jeopardy? No, no, just go after them in civil court." ...and so on.

Re:they need... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929149)

...supreme court dolls.

You pull a string, and they say things like:

"The supreme court can modify the constitution because the supreme court says so"

Do you know what an amendment is? Jesus Christ Americans have a new Holy Bible.

Re:they need... (1, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929381)

Sure do. hasn't got fuck all to do with supreme court justices. Read article five, chum.

Re:they need... (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931667)

Please copy and paste the portion of Constitution of the United States the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to unilaterally modify the Constitution.

Re:they need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929773)

...supreme court dolls.

You pull a string, and they say things like:

"The supreme court can modify the constitution because the supreme court says so"

Do you know what an amendment is?

Amendments aren't up to the SC to add whenever they feel like it, it's a rather more difficult process...

Re:they need... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929891)

Jesus Christ wasn't an American. Now, stop with the revisionist history bullshit, please.

Re:they need... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929199)

Don't forget the Congressional Inaction Figures.

Re:they need... (4, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929393)

...they only work if you buy the lobbyist figure set.

Re:they need... (3, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931107)

Larry the Lobbyist playset comes with Larry the Lobbyist action figure, a play mirror, 3 hooker action figures, sugar packets, and a briefcase filled with play money.

Mix and Match what Larry the Lobbyist says by affixing different logos to his briefcase!

When combined with the Politicial Inaction figures from the Congressional-Regressional playset, Endless combinations of interaction are possible!

*Congressional Inaction figures respond differently based on the amount of play money inside the briefcase, and also according to how many hooker action figures and how many sugar packets have been spilled on the play mirror.

Re:they need... (1)

formfeed (703859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932157)

Don't forget the Congressional Inaction Figures.

Would make for a nice piggy bank.

Re:they need... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929309)

Could also sell slashdotter dolls. Pull a string and they spew incomprehensible, opinionated gibberish that's so fucking ignorant it makes you involuntarily facepalm.

Re:they need... (1, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929905)

See - it works! I got my slashdotter doll to post an incomprehensible, opinionated gibberish post that's so fucking ignorant it makes normal slashdotters want to smash their faces into their desks! IT WORKS ETHEL!!

Re:they need... (1)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929323)

I think a libertarian/"constitutionalist" (quotes intentional) bobble head doll would be even more hilarious.

Re:they need... (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929975)

I wish to subscribe to your bulletin. Who else would you want to decide what is or isn't allowed under the Constitution?

Re:they need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930181)

Keyword: "modify."

In other words, add things that weren't there before, and come up with absurd interpretations to remove things.

Re:they need... (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932303)

No, that's not the point. You say something isn't Constitutional because of the way you think about it, someone else says it is because of the way they think about it. Everyone is entitled to the bigotry of their own prejudice but "what is Constitutional" is a political question, not one of your personal prejudice. So when we disagree someone has to decide. Are you just complaining that we haven't decided to do away with the Supreme Court and simply appoint you personally to make these decisions?

Re:they need... (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930791)

Who else would you want to decide what is or isn't allowed under the Constitution?

SCOTUS decides what the government will treat as constitutional or not; their opinions do not change what is actually constitutional. Just like a bad call by the refs doesn't change the rules of a game, even if there's no appeal, a bad call by the Supremes doesn't change the Constitution.

Re:they need... (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932279)

Right right, whatever, but when faced with a disagreement about what the Constitution means, then someone has to decide in order for us to take actions. What is meant by "is Constitutional" and "isn't Constitutional" is some kind of judgement which blesses or prevents an action. It is pretty much meaningless for you to say things like "what is actually constitutional" because of course there is no objective meaning to the document; it's meaning is a property of the brains which ponder it. So if two brains disagree what what the meaning is, then you agree that someone has to pretty much decide what "is" and "isn't" Constitutional, and the SCOTUS is the body we set up for that purpose.

With all that, what exactly are you complaining about? Are you complaining that we don't disband the SCOTUS and have you personally decide issues of Constitution? I guess I would also like to be the Constitutionality Czar, so I share your desire there.

Re:they need... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930275)

Why don't you right-wingers just SHUT UP?

Re:they need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932727)

There is no "right wing" when it comes to wiping ass with the Constitution, Republicans and Democrats shit and shit alike.

Simpsons did it (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929055)

News for Nerds, recycled Fark stories

Re:Simpsons did it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929479)

Um, thanks for the heads-up. Now run along back to this "Fark" of yours.

Re:Simpsons did it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930149)

Fark is still around? I thought it'd gone the way of Kuroshin and Digg.

G.I. Joe (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929065)

Just wait until these people find out that G.I. Joe [wikipedia.org] has been turning children into war machines for half a century. He has a full complement of air, ground, and water assault vehicles. [wikipedia.org] He has even militarized outer space with his own space shuttle [figure-archive.net] .

Re:G.I. Joe (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929283)

Yes, I'm puzzle at the sarcasm here. It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.

Re:G.I. Joe (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929351)

Yes, I'm puzzle at the sarcasm here. It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.

This is probably why most of the review-snark is focused on our wacky adventures in novel legal interpretation with a side of collateral damage, rather than the (not particularly exceptional, if comparatively cheap) capabilities of the drone itself.

The news isn't that weapons have marched on; but that we really haven't been covering ourselves with glory when it comes to using them.

Re:G.I. Joe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930747)

(Oh, also, it doesn't help that, while the armed forces certainly use them in addition to manned aircraft, drones make up somewhere between a 'significant' and an 'overwhelming' portion of the CIA's little in-house air force. Given their superior payload capacity and use in active combat zones, manned aircraft probably dish out more ethically troubling kills in terms of pure volume; but any time the CIA decides that somebody needs to blow up now, and it doesn't really matter whose airspace we need to violate, or what crowd they are standing in, it's probably a drone delivering the exciting news. Manned aircraft have the advantage of having their PR mostly defined by uniformed military branches who, even among staunchly anti-war groups, usually have a pretty decent public image: 'good people stuck with a fool's errand' is about as harsh as you can get before you really head out into the periphery of public opinion. Drones, however may are used by the uniformed services, have sticky Langley spook fingerprints all over them, and that is a downright radioactive PR problem by comparison.)

Re:G.I. Joe (0)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930781)

It's a war toy, somewhat more up to date than the war toys I played with as a kid, but cap-guns, soldier action figures, grenades, bazookas, model jet fighters, tanks, and battleships... I played with all of these. There's nothing new about this.

There is something new here. All of the real life analogs of the toys you listed require the operators of those things to put themselves in harms way. We could have a separate discussion about if its a good idea to glorify war in the eyes of our children through play or not but there is something different about a drone.

Do we want to teach our children the good guys kill from far away and attack enemies who have no capability to do them any immediate harm?

Children are not going understand the other legal and ethical questions around drones like why all the adults are having intense discussions about what "immediate" means and banding around fancy bullshit terms like "kinetic military action", but they can and will understand the basic question. That is a very different message and may shape early thinking differently than that cap gun where their imaginary enemy is probably shooting back.

Yes we do (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931267)

Do we want to teach our children the good guys kill from far away

If we want to raise smart kids, yes. That makes a lot more sense than going where someone can hurt you.

and attack enemies who have no capability to do them any immediate harm? ... unless you get close, then the have guns, mines, explosives planted in roads, succeed bombers, etc.

Do you also teach your kids its safer to cross the highway by dodging cars rather than using the pedestrian overpass?

Re:G.I. Joe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929817)

When did G.I. Joe claim the right to kill american citizens without the constitutional right to due process?

Re:G.I. Joe (4, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929919)

G.I. Joe never objected to any killing mission that I sent him on. Joe is a good soldier, who obeys orders, and is willing to kill ANYONE who gets in the way.

Let that be a warning, you commie pinko AC!

Re:G.I. Joe (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930405)

G.I. Joe never objected to any killing mission that I sent him on. Joe is a good soldier, who obeys orders, and is willing to kill ANYONE who gets in the way.

Let that be a warning, you commie pinko AC!

Back to the head museum with you, Nixon.

Re:G.I. Joe (0)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931265)

You evidently didn't notice that the commie pinkos are now in power, and GI Joe is now working for them .. let that be a warning, you capitalist pig!

Dont know whether to laugh or cry (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929129)

You've had a busy play day - You've wiretapped Mom's cell phone and e-mail without a warrant, you've indefinitely detained your little brother Timmy in the linen closet without trial, and you've confiscated all the Super-Soakers from the neighborhood children (after all, why does any kid - besides you, of course - even NEED a Super-Soaker for self-defense? A regular water pistol should be enough). What do you do for an encore?

That's where the US Air Force Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator from Maisto comes in. Let's say that Dad has been labeled a terrorist in secret through your disposition matrix. Rather than just arrest him and go through the hassle of trying and convicting him in a court of law, and having to fool with all those terrorist-loving Constitutional protections, you can just use one of these flying death robots to assassinate him! Remember, due process and oversight are for sissies. Plus, you get the added bonus of taking out potential terrorists before they've even done anything - estimates have determined that you can kill up to 49 potential future terrorists of any age for every confirmed terrorist you kill, and with the innovative 'double-tap' option, you can even kill a few terrorist first responders, preventing them from committing terrorist acts like helping the wounded and rescuing survivors trapped in the rubble. Don't let Dad get away with anti-American activities! Show him who's boss, whether he's at a wedding, a funeral, or just having his morning coffee. Sow fear and carnage in your wake! Win a Nobel Peace Prize and be declared Time Magazine's Person of the Year - Twice!

This goes well with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!

(Source: Amazon listing)

Re:Dont know whether to laugh or cry (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929289)

OMG! It even comes with 1:97 scale hellfire missiles with spring loaded action! You can also pick up a 1:97 scale "brown people minding their own business" play set, a 1:97 scale "brown people wedding party" play set, and a a 1:97 scale "brown people ambulance crew/first responder" play set! It has an ambulance and a fire truck with spring loaded 1:97 scale explosive action! It's SO AWESOME! I wonder if the little models are american people or just regular people? Who cares, it doesn't matter! We can double tap them all, in realistic 1:97 scale of course! It comes complete with a little bag of 1:97 scale body parts, mixed with 1:97 scale blood! I love the detail on their little 1:97 scale faces! I swear, you can almost SEE the fear and anguish as they writhe in 1:97 scale agony! It is ALMOST as if you are actually flying a real (1:97 scale) death dealing predator robot, watching it kill brown people on your monitor from thousands of miles away. This toy is too much fun!

Re:Dont know whether to laugh or cry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930075)

(a) It's not a robot, it's a remote-controlled vehicle
(b) Since when does the antiwar crowd overlap with the antiguncontrol crowd? Oh yeah, whenever a Democrat is in power.

Re:Dont know whether to laugh or cry (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931121)

Wouldn't matter if you had a supersoaker or an assault rifle against a government that has drones, an airforce, a huge army, tanks and bombs, not to mention biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. This isn't two armies with muskets and cannons like in the 18th century, the battle between the patriots (who don't seem to have risen up at all in the last 200 or so years in any case) and the US government will not go so well for the patriots.

Re:Dont know whether to laugh or cry (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931251)

I think that, though you raise valid points, the outcome would not be nearly as bleak as you expect.

Next toy to oversold (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929255)

Missing (yet) in the Amazon catalog are puppets, in particular of judges, senators and other high government positions. They could use it in a (incoming) role playing game called Lobby, a bit much like Troika [nytimes.com] , but with puppets to give it more realism.

"Jets" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929271)

That really flared up my anal retention.

Oh the Possible Irony (1)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929307)

It'd be a hoot if the toy were more expensive than the actual drones.

Brilliant (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929411)

Some of the comments are the standard comment drivel you get anywhere, but many are really well written. I haven't had so much fun reading reviews since three wolf moon.

See all 216 customer reviews (newest first) (1)

roguegramma (982660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929499)

And strangely enough, it has 6*6*6 customer reviews right now ..

Fail wrong scale (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929631)

real geeks would want it in 20mm or 28mm scale so it would fit with the rest of our models - and you Airifix re issue those Operation Herrick sets in 172 stat oh and some models of the tasty Jackals and Coyotes would be nice.

good as the real thing (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42929711)

Proves that for the weapons fetishists, a toy is as good as the real thing. Better, in fact, because you don't have to actually put on a uniform and risk being caught in some third world country without your bag of cheetos and mom's meat loaf.

Man, they really showed those dirty fucking hippies what's what when they bought up all the $50 toy model drones, d'nt they? Red State Trike Force...ASSEMBLE!

You can have my 1:87 scale die-cast Predator drone with display stand when you wrest it from my cold dead hands!

Re:good as the real thing (1, Informative)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931311)

Proves that for the weapons fetishists

This is the most contrived attempt I've ever seen to artificially try work an off-topic ad hominem attack on gun owners into an unrelated discussion.

Incidentally, it is the same administration (the one you support) using drones like this to murder children [alternet.org] overseas, that are pushing for gun control.

Re:good as the real thing (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931331)

PS to be clear, both Republicans and Democrats (I supported neither) have supported and perpetuated the same violations, so that was not a partisan jab, it was a jab at immoral murders, by any human being who has a sense of moral outrage against murder without due process (which should be qualities not really related to nationality or party affiliation).

Re:good as the real thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932325)

it was a jab at immoral murders, by any human being who has a sense of moral outrage against murder without due process

Did you just conflate self-defense with murder? I think you did.

Re:good as the real thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932607)

Did you just conflate self-defense with murder? I think you did.

Did you just conflate collateral damage with self-defense? I think you did.

Re:good as the real thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42932923)

WTF!? You're not really following the thread very well, are you ..

Douchebaggery cannot be forgiven (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929715)

...or it will fester. It has to be excised decisively and without mercy.
Just went through every mock review and TOSed the lot except for one which I reported for inciting racism.
I guess a lot of naive brainwashed young people will soon need to open a new amazon account.
Sucks for them if they own a Kindle - content is non-transferable.

Re:Douchebaggery cannot be forgiven (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929953)

Yes, I can see that you are festering. Oh well - shit happens - even between your ears.

Amazon used neo-Nazi guards in Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42929947)

First the Nazis [independent.co.uk] . Now also selling weapons.

Taste and no taste (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930473)

I visited the Yamato[0] Museum in Kure near Hiroshima a few years back. The gift shop had model kits on sale, including the Revell "Enola Gay" B-29. Given that the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima had been visible in Kure just down the coast, I thought it was in dubious taste. I still regret not buying the Mitsubishi Zero plushy toy though.

[0]The centrepiece of the museum is a 1:10 scale model of the battleship Yamato.

Re:Taste and no taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42931085)

The centrepiece of the museum is a 1:10 scale model of the battleship Yamato.

With or without the wave-motion cannon?

Re:Taste and no taste (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about a year and a half ago | (#42931141)

The Wave-motion Cannon was upstairs in an exhibit gallery showing models, artwork, animation cels etc. from the Space Battleship Yamato movies.

entertainment (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42930499)

well the poor kids probably think all the shit they see on tv re government and wars, iran, north korea etc is all part of a big tv show like ben 10 or spiderman

how are the barack obama dolls doing in slaes?

Misleading Product Description? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930721)

Amazon's entire 'product description' for the toy:
"The RQ-1 Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which the United States Air Force describes as a MALE (medium-altitude, long-endurance) UAV system. It can serve in a reconnaissance role and fire two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The aircraft, in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen. It is remote-controlled by humans so is therefore not an autonomous aircraft. "

Not sure how they can afford to sell that for only $50... tax subsidies?

You can't assume the drone is sold out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42931059)

Maybe it actually loves doing what it does, or really believes what the authorities tell it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?