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

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

[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

[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]

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

[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)?

Stand by ...

[PPH]

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

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...

[fyngyrz]

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

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.

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

[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!

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: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?

Here's a better one..

[h8sg8s]

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

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

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?

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).