Amazon Sells Out Predator Drone Toy After Mocking Reviews

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."

Comments

Awesome

[basicasic]

Just f***ing awesome. Haha.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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

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

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It doesn't stop there... ;)

Re:Awesome

[PopeRatzo]

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

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[osu-neko]

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

[sribe]

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

Actually, that would be cool...

Re:Awesome

[drinkypoo]

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

Awesome, they are now unavailable. I should try listing mine for an absurd amount and see if I can find a sucker.

Re:Awesome

[drinkypoo]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[SourceFrog]

That is simultaneously very funny, and very sad.

Re:Awesome

[SourceFrog]

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

[Jane Q. Public]

"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

[SourceFrog]

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

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[buybuydandavis]

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

[Jane Q. Public]

"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

[PopeRatzo]

There might be moral arguments made

That's all I'm qualified to do.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Em Adespoton]

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

[Em Adespoton]

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

[buybuydandavis]

Unless, of course, you're saying that because someone is born somewhere other than inside the borders you defend, they are not human

That must be exactly what I was saying. Who could think otherwise?

*plonk*

Re:Awesome

[Inda]

Size doesn't mean shit and I'm glad you mentioned "80%" because that's the figure I'm going to use to.

80% of fights are won by the person who strikes first.

80% of fights are won by the attacker if the attacker attacks from behind. No amount of weapons will save you from a brick to the back of the neck.

Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are. The person who's willing to take it the all the way will win. Whoever is the most tapped in the head will win. Whoever is most mental will win.

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

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.

Agreed. Hopefully in such a case the intimidation factor would be enough to make discharging the rifle unnecessary. I'm not to keen on the idea of rifles being fired in urban areas, semi-auto or not. The idea that the solution to being a poor shot is more firepower indicates just as much a problem with your education system as it does with your firearms laws. To be fair, both sides of the US gun debate are riddled with stupidity. The ever popular use of "gun deaths" rather than murder and suicide rates by anti-gunners is a case in point.

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are.

Yet boxing is divided by weight divisions. Sure the little guy can win if he's good but that's not the way to bet. I based the 80% guess on the adult population and me being the attacker (a hypothetical situation I assure you). Given half women, most of whom have no significant martial arts training and a portion of old people I think I placed myself about middle of the range for adult males, based on above average size but lack of fighting skill. I'm not going to attack large numbers of individuals for the purpose of determining the percentage more accurately, sorry for the lack of precision.

As for first striker and attacks from behind, these issues involve situational awareness more so than fighting ability. I do not overindulge in alcohol in public. I doubt I will ever be attacked by ninjas. People do not "come out of nowhere". The chance that the first thing I will know about an attack is a brick to the back of the head is pretty remote.

Re:Awesome

[cod3r_]

Heller VS DC supreme court says any weapon that can be used for lawful purposes is OK. Semi automatic rifles included. If they take them from citizens they HAVE to take them from cops as well because it is a gun that can be used for lawful purposes.

Re:Awesome

[tehcyder]

Take it from me, it has nothing to do with how big your big manly mussles are.

Yet boxing is divided by weight divisions.

Boxing has pretty strict rules. The sort of street fighting involving a brick to the back of your neck, in GP's charming phrase, does not. He's absolutely right, that whoever strikes first and is most mental will win.

If you're prepared to react to someone spilling your drink in a pub by smashing a glass and stabbing them in the face with it (like Begbie in Trainspotting) you are going to win most fights, simply because there won't be much actual fighting involved from your victim. So size is pretty irrelevant.

Re:Awesome

[hackula]

My personal (albeit unrealistic) belief is that you should be able to own whatever gun you want... but then we ban ammunition. Nothing allowed but rubber bullets, and we confiscate all the regular ammo. Drink one too many King Cobras and shoot your wife in a drunken rage? You can both laugh it off in the morning!

Re:Awesome

[hackula]

... our urban cities are increasingly destroyed by criminal elements.

The actual data disagrees with you here. Violent crime has been falling since the early 90s. Also, those extra 20 rounds would not even be particularly useful in the situation you laid out. No one is going to take out 20 guys with a pistol while being attacked. You could get a couple shots off, at which point they would run or you would be overwhelmed.

Re:Awesome

[judoguy]

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

What does "need" have to do with this topic? Seriously. shall we put in place a government commission to determine what American citizens need and limit possession to that list? After all, no one *needs* fashionable clothing, or big screen TV's or video games.

Oh, you say, we only need a government defined list for dangerous things. No one needs dangerous things, of course. No wait, I just mean things that someone *could* use to harm another person. No one needs anything that could used to hurt other people!

Is that a serious argument? I hear dumbasses all the time say crap like "Those scary looking guns are only designed for killing people. No one needs one of those!"

Really? Wow, scary "assault rifles" are only for killing people? Then why are they so bad at it? Over a hundred million rifles are owned by Americans with probably hundreds of millions of rounds fired each year. Every "assault rifle" I've ever seen comes with a 30 round mag. Less than 400 people were killed with a rifle of any kind last year, with "assault weapons" being a fraction of that. In a country of 314 million people armed with over 100 million rifles.

The "gun control" frenzy has NOTHING to do with safety. The great murderer Chairman Mao said it very clearly: "All political power flows from the barrel of a gun".

Literally, no gun, no political power.

Re:Awesome

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Rationalization.

Billionaires in walled compounds keep their own machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

Re:Awesome

[Em Adespoton]

I toyed with this idea, but you can still kill with a rubber bullet, and the "gun as defense" proponents will argue that if lethal force is unlikely, the threat of anyone holding a gun will be removed as the great equalizer. See, the argument for guns as a safety measure is that theoretically, every person on the street can kill you if you threaten them -- so society takes that into consideration and we treat everyone respectfully. If only criminals have metal jackets, that kind of takes the force out of "right to bear arms".

I don't think there's an easy answer.

Re:Awesome

[thegameiam]

s/clip/magazine/

Precision when discussing controversial issues is a good thing. Doubly so when the controversial issue involves lethal weapons.

Re:Awesome

[mattack2]

What does "need" have to do with this topic? Seriously. shall we put in place a government commission to determine what American citizens need and limit possession to that list? After all, no one *needs* fashionable clothing, or big screen TV's or video games.

Going off topic from the gun debateâ¦

Yes, we should.. at least if it's my tax money (through welfare) paying for it. If my tax money is paying for something for someone else, we definitely should be able to say whether it's something they need or not. Don't let them buy any yummy food, or non-essentials (booze, cigarettes) with welfare money.

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

He's absolutely right, that whoever strikes first and is most mental will win. ... So size is pretty irrelevant.

That's an interesting theory not borne out in reality. Sure, if you can land a surprise devastating blow first you have a good chance of winning, but a strong guy has a far greater chance of his blow being devastating and a greater chance of withstanding a blow from a weaker opponent. Are your military special forces the smallest guys in the military? About average? My informal observation is that they tend to be on the larger side. Why? Couldn't the military just find some skinny women, older people or children and teach them to strike first?

I know that if my wife was to attack me unarmed I would be in no real danger (so far, she's started training so next year might be different). There is no way I could argue in court that I needed lethal force to defend myself from her. The reverse is untrue.

Size and strength do not provide an insurmountable advantage but to say they don't provide an advantage is fanciful nonsense. All other things being equal the stronger wins. If the weaker has other mitigating advantages they could win. Since we are talking self defense here I'd be prepared to bet that most criminals target a weaker victim. We probably all know a smaller guy that has beaten someone bigger, it doesn't mean strength doesn't make a difference.

Re:Awesome

[redlemming]

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

If you defined murder as the killing of human beings, then war IS murder. War is organized, systematic murder, generally governed by some form of laws or conventions, but murder none the less.

However, it is more common to define murder as killing that goes beyond the laws or conventions of a society or set of societies, in which case war (and acts of war) are not murder.

If you do the research, you'll find out that the decision to bomb Hiroshima was based upon very clear logic, and was intended to avoid an estimated 1 million Allied casualties that an invasion of Japan would cause, plus probably vastly more Japanese casualties (including civilian casualties) than were actually killed by the bomb. This decision was consistent with how the war was being fought, and was not contrary to any law or convention. It's an ugly truth that many people choose not to accept because they don't want to be confused by facts, but working through the research and coming to the right conclusion shouldn't be a problem for a Slashdot reader.

Similarly, if you look at the history of the Dresden bombing (for instance, read "The Bomber War - The Allied Air Offensive Against Nazi Germany", by Robin Neillands) you'll find it wasn't particularly different from many other air attacks made during the war, either in the nature of the target or the objectives. The firestorm generated in this particular raid resulted in massive casualties, but this wasn't the first or only time that heavy casualties happened as a result of a bombing raid.

Ideally, bombing raids on cities should have been made illegal before the war, but nobody was willing to get together to pass laws to achieve that (any more than they were willing to outlaw naval blockades of food and medical supplies). In the absence of law to the contrary, by our second definition, this was not murder.

Warfare throughout history has resulted in direct and indirect civilian casualties on many, many occasions. It's an ugly truth, but that's the way things are. It takes far more than just civilian casualties to turn an act of war into murder.

You might also want to read the "Laws of Land Warfare", the US Army field manual that covers many of the key points on how these matters are viewed today.

Re:Awesome

[Sporkinum]

She would do you in with antifreeze in lime jello, or ground glass in your oatmeal. Your argument is irrelevant.

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

No, no it isn't. My original post was answering the question of whether people have a right to weapons. My claims were that (1) people do have a right to self defense and (2) disparate strength of some people means that weapons bans discriminate against the weak and are not equitable. Nothing in any of the various replies to my post refutes those points. I never claimed that people are not capable of using poison and it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand. The availability of poison is unlikely to have any affect whatsoever on the ability of a weak person to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.

Re:Awesome

[Sporkinum]

Pedantic man is pedantic. (I was joking)

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

I guess I misread the expression on your face as you typed that. Sometimes I can be a bit humorless. My bad.

Re:Awesome

[PopeRatzo]

However, it is more common to define murder as killing that goes beyond the laws or conventions of a society or set of societies

Hard to say Hiroshima/Nagasaki were covered by the "laws or conventions" of any society, since they were such singular events.

You might also want to read the "Laws of Land Warfare", the US Army field manual that covers many of the key points

As I said, my argument is purely a moral one, not a legal one, though I imagine the manual you cite would make for interesting reading.

It's always struck me as paradoxical, the effort to set out a set of rules for modern warfare. I wonder how many conflicts since 1900 could be said to have been waged in compliance with such laws. My guess is that there would be violations by both sides in every single conflict of any of the "rules of war". I know for sure, based upon first-hand accounts from my dad, who I am bound by blood to believe, that there were violations by both sides in the Pacific theater of WWII.

I'm inclined to agree with most of the Catholic ethicists, who believe that all war is immoral, but I depart from them in my belief that immorality is sometimes necessary. Necessity does not attenuate immorality, however necessary the act.

One particular Catholic writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, asserts that besides being immoral, war is also always unnecessary - that even WWII could have been averted. Unfortunately, his argument seems to require an almost perfect ability of the leaders of nations that were to become the Allied forces, to determine future behavior based upon past. And we know that ain't happening.

Thanks for the tip on "Laws of Land Warfare". I've found it and intend to read it, though I guarantee it won't be in one sitting.

Re:Awesome

[rohan972]

I bet you are just fat, fattsos are rarely lethal threats. Most women with proper self defense classes (a couple jiujitsu grapples, a couple of kravmaga choke punches) can take you down without the need of piercing the massive lard body attached to your torax with a bullet.

My personal ability is not provable here and doesn't change the argument. I'm not a skilled fighter but the strength disparity would give me an advantage over most people. My wife's female jiujitsu trainer could certainly throw me yet she teaches for women faced with a large male opponents to run if possible for the specific reason that it is harder to land a disabling blow. The reality is that it takes quite a bit of training for a smaller person to overcome a much stronger one, but many attackers are not expecting resistance so if you fight back at all you can gain a surprise advantage. I don't think our laws regarding self defense should rely on the attacker to be incompetent.

So, yes, trained fighters could beat me. Maybe they form a higher portion of the population than I assume, but since that training is available to all, the advantage still lies with the strong. With weapons as a force multiplier strength becomes less relevant. Therefore banning weapons is not equitable.

Re:Awesome

[redlemming]

Hard to say Hiroshima/Nagasaki were covered by the "laws or conventions" of any society, since they were such singular events.

From our perspective today, these are singular events.

However, the horror of radiation was not fully understood at that time.

From the perspective of the decision makers of the time, these were just much more powerful bombs.

The conventional bombing campaign against Japan, by that point in the war, had probably killed more people than those who were killed by the atomic bombs (the wikipedia page Air Raids on Japan is a good starting point for reading up on just how bad things were).

For that matter, the high end estimates for people killed due to the use of nuclear weapons is around 280k. The high end estimate of the total people killed by WW2 is 60 million, so the nuclear weapons were responsible for only (very roughly) half of one percent of the total deaths in the war.

It was an ugly period in history.

It's always struck me as paradoxical, the effort to set out a set of rules for modern warfare.

I suspect everyone who has studied the subject would agree with you there.

However, having rules does have some practical consequences, and that matters quite a bit.

For example, there were attempts prior to WWI to develop rules of war that prohibited naval blockages from interfering with the shipment of food and medical supplies. The British refused to sign these treaties, and implemented a naval blockage in WWI against Germany (and the bordering neutral nations) that resulted in many civilian deaths, primarily children and the elderly, from starvation or lack of medical care. This created considerable long-term hatred in Germany, which in turn became one of the factors that led to WW2. So the presence, or absence, of rules on the conduct of warfare can have significant long term effects.

Similar blockades in modern history, in comparison, permit the passage of food and medical supplies, so I suppose we've learned something from the mistakes of the past.

I know for sure, based upon first-hand accounts from my dad, who I am bound by blood to believe, that there were violations by both sides in the Pacific theater of WWII.

I don't think anyone who has studied the written history in depth doubts this.

For that matter, there were violations by both sides in the European theater.

There were also acts of honor and charity by both sides, in both theaters.

One particular Catholic writer, whose name escapes me at the moment, asserts that besides being immoral, war is also always unnecessary - that even WWII could have been averted.

Conversely, other thinkers have asserted that peace is an abstraction whose existence we deduce from the existence of intervals between wars. That's not intended to be sarcastic: depends upon how one counts, the 20th century saw between 30 and over 100 wars. Hopefully we will do better during this century.

Re:Awesome

[Em Adespoton]

That must be exactly what I was saying. Who could think otherwise?

*plonk*

Dialectic is used to highlight features in fields of gray. I know many people who think otherwise. Are you one of them?

Re:Awesome

[PopeRatzo]

From our perspective today, these are singular events.

However, the horror of radiation was not fully understood at that time.

Really?

Re:Awesome

[redlemming]

A lot of what we learned about just how bad radiation can be was learned as a result of studies done after the bombing (see, for example, the research done by Terufumi Sasaki's group, or the work of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission).

This doesn't mean that no appreciation of the danger existed prior to that: Rontgen reported getting burns from x-rays as early as 1895, for example.

A lot of things associated with the bomb project was (and probably remains) classified, and it's not entirely clear exactly what they knew. However, it is certain that they wouldn't have fully understood the dangers of radiation because they didn't possess today's medical knowledge about things like genetics and dna.

Re:Awesome

[PopeRatzo]

A lot of things associated with the bomb project was (and probably remains) classified, and it's not entirely clear exactly what they knew. However, it is certain that they wouldn't have fully understood the dangers of radiation because they didn't possess today's medical knowledge about things like genetics and dna.

That's all certainly true.

I'm not sure we can deny the immorality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on the notion that we didn't really know how bad it was going to be, though. I'm pretty sure we had a good idea that it was going to suck for the people living in those places.

Thanks /.

[cultiv8]

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 /.

[gl4ss]

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?

Stand by ...

[PPH]

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

Re:Stand by ...

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

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

they need...

[fyngyrz]

...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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the Congressional Inaction Figures.

Re:they need...

[Improv]

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

Re:they need...

[fyngyrz]

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

Re:they need...

[fyngyrz]

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

Re:they need...

[Runaway1956]

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

Re:they need...

[Runaway1956]

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...

[Myopic]

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...

[DNS-and-BIND]

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

Re:they need...

[mikael]

Your wish has come true:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ron-Paul-Revolution-Libertarian-Tea-Party-7-BobbleHead-Case-of-24-/271027788164

Re:they need...

[Mr. Slippery]

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...

[wierd_w]

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...

[DaveV1.0]

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...

[formfeed]

Don't forget the Congressional Inaction Figures.

Would make for a nice piggy bank.

Re:they need...

[Myopic]

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...

[Myopic]

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...

[fyngyrz]

They don't. It's a power they usurped for themselves. See Marbury vs. Madison.

I never said they had such a power legitimately. My position is 180 opposite. But they do act as if they have such a power, and have exercised it most thoroughly, many times.

Interstate commerce? Effectively "intrastate"

Shall not infringe? Except when we say it's ok.

Search, seizure, requires a warrant? Not so much.

ex post facto? aw, heck no, we'll just say "punishment isn't punishment" (a variety of the absurdity "it depends on what is, is.)

Eminent domain? For any reason you please.

and so on.

Judicial power does not extend to modifying law on the fly. Just ask any judge. They are bound by the law. Yet the supreme court does this with astounding regularity. There *is* a means provided to modify the law. It's in article five. The current government would prefer we forget it exists, and go on making things up out of whole cloth. Our government is corrupt from oath to action.

Simpsons did it

[Gothmolly]

News for Nerds, recycled Fark stories

G.I. Joe

[hawguy]

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

Re:G.I. Joe

[Geoffrey.landis]

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

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:G.I. Joe

[Runaway1956]

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

[tehcyder]

When you played soldiers as a kid you probably didn't choose to be a Nazi torturer, unless you were a very, um, special child.

Re:G.I. Joe

[GameboyRMH]

G.I. Joe offers terrible training, suggesting that revealing, borderline homoerotic costumes make good battle armor, that hanging onto the sides of vehicles is a safe way to move around a combat zone, that the enemy is absolutely incompetent and can't shoot worth a damn, and it's OK if you can't shoot worth a damn either...and those are just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:G.I. Joe

[mattack2]

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?

Yeah, flying planes into buildings.. Nope, the bad guys didn't have any capability for immediate harm.

Dont know whether to laugh or cry

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[cyber-vandal]

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

[Kreigaffe]

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

Re:Dont know whether to laugh or cry

[tehcyder]

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

As in any revolutionary/insurgent/freedom fighter type of scenario, it would depend primarily on how many people were on your side against the government. One guy with an assault rifle against the entire US army is only going to end one way. One million guys with petrol bombs, sticks and stones is something else.

Next toy to oversold

[gmuslera]

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, but with puppets to give it more realism.

Oh the Possible Irony

[Improv]

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

Brilliant

[roc97007]

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)

[roguegramma]

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

Fail wrong scale

[mjwalshe]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[SourceFrog]

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 overseas, that are pushing for gun control.

Re:good as the real thing

[SourceFrog]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Oh, I've done much better.

By the way, I'm a gun owner.

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

And you support the turds who believe that weapons ownership and brandishing same is a god-given right but don't want any nations but the US and Israel to own nukes.

Here's a better one..

[h8sg8s]

http://www.nitroplanes.com/projet-drone-2500mm-kit.html

And it flies. Be afraid, be very afraid..

De-Evolution

[Flere Imsaho]

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

Re:De-Evolution

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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

Re:De-Evolution

[Flere Imsaho]

:-)

Taste and no taste

[nojayuk]

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

[nojayuk]

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

Re:Taste and no taste

[tehcyder]

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'm not sure I want to know what you consider actual bad taste then.

Re:Taste and no taste

[nojayuk]

I'm not sure I want to know what you consider actual bad taste then.

The Pedobear plushie toys I saw on sale in Akiba last year? The turd plushy http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee12/nojay_photo/Odds%20and%20Sods/poo.jpg advertising constipation medicine in a drugstore window in Onomichi?

Re:Taste and no taste

[GameboyRMH]

Wasn't Pedobear a kids' cartoon character before 4chan made him the bear who likes no hair down there?

entertainment

[crutchy]

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?

Awesome.

[detritus.]

Anyone know where I can get an RQ-170 in hot pink?

http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-us-drone-obama-933/

Get the tshirt!

[funky49]

If you can't have a model drone, you might as well get a "Droney - the friendly surveillance drone" tshirt!

http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=TMW-DRONEY&Category_Code=TMW

funky49

Full disclosure, I own this shirt and it is soft.

Yes we do

[SuperKendall]

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?