![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Some of the contents of this article are either questionable, or somewhat unclear.
Is this saying that the "pure fantasy" is that these weapons would be in the school's armoury? As the weapons themselves are legit.
Just my 2 cents but the school is middle and high school level, and I've never seen one yet with functioning weapons. Normally ROTC units do not keep "armories" of weapons at any level except at the US military academies, but in any case, legal or not, it is highly unlikely crew-served weapons would be at a high school and grenades not at all.
I like the film, but it was always a little funny watching these kids with automatic weapons and heavy ordinance. Now there's a military school for ya!
It wouldn't be at all unusual for a military academy to have semi-automatic versions of the M16 rifles along with semi-automatic versions of M14 rifles and perhaps marksmanship rifles too. It is pure fantasy to imagine that a doomsday arsenal of fully automatic M16's, M60's, M2's and 81mm mortars would be stored at the school - unless it had a second use as a National Guard arsenal. -- Apolloin ( talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The weapons are referred to as "government property;" I'm pretty sure the feds don't involve itself with operating or assisting private military schools.
Whether or not the federal would be involved in supplying a place like Bunker Hill Academy, there is no way in hell it would furnish it with full-functioning automatic weapons (M16A1 rifles, M2 HMGs, M60 MG), M26 frag grenades, and (talk about suspension of disbelief) 81mm mortars. About 20 years ago when I was a tank crewman in the Marines, those of us who owned their own privately-purchased firearms were forbidden to store them in our barracks rooms; we were required to register them with the battalion armorer and store them in the armory itself. That, despite the fact we were all members of one of the most highly-trained and well-disciplined military organizations on Earth, bar none.
Besides the obvious issues of legal liability that this arrangement proposes, the government would then find itself obligated-- probably by federal law, simple common sense, or both-- to see to it that the weapons were not only kept in a secure building, but guarded 24/7/365 by a crew of qualified (and armed) professional security officers, likely from a 3rd-party civilian contractor charging the feds a hefty fee for their services.
The amount of available real estate maintained by the academy for weapons training-- which presumably would involve firing them, thus requiring a generous "buffer zone" to prevent errant ordinance from going high and wide and hitting the outlying town-- would likely dwarf the campus itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 ( talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
For a group of young guys who were apparently well-drilled and well-versed in conducting a military operation, the manner in which they set up defensive positions was awful to a degree that probably would have been the cadets' greatest risk factor. For starters: the gate was guarded by two sandbagged positions close to each other with armed troops packed into them like sardines, as if part of some attempt to assure maximum casualties once shooting commenced. In front of them: an barred opening built into the walls on either side of the gate, manned by a single cadet who-- as a result-- positioned directly in front the of sandbagged positions and in their direct line of fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
At the time this movie was released, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were still hosting "Sneak Previews" on PBS. Ebert lavished the film with praise, but Siskel panned it. That surprised me, because I always considered Ebert the tougher of the two critics. I don't remember all Siskel said about the movie, but I remember him using the word "laughable", and not in a complimentary sense. 76.6.218.158 ( talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Some of the contents of this article are either questionable, or somewhat unclear.
Is this saying that the "pure fantasy" is that these weapons would be in the school's armoury? As the weapons themselves are legit.
Just my 2 cents but the school is middle and high school level, and I've never seen one yet with functioning weapons. Normally ROTC units do not keep "armories" of weapons at any level except at the US military academies, but in any case, legal or not, it is highly unlikely crew-served weapons would be at a high school and grenades not at all.
I like the film, but it was always a little funny watching these kids with automatic weapons and heavy ordinance. Now there's a military school for ya!
It wouldn't be at all unusual for a military academy to have semi-automatic versions of the M16 rifles along with semi-automatic versions of M14 rifles and perhaps marksmanship rifles too. It is pure fantasy to imagine that a doomsday arsenal of fully automatic M16's, M60's, M2's and 81mm mortars would be stored at the school - unless it had a second use as a National Guard arsenal. -- Apolloin ( talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The weapons are referred to as "government property;" I'm pretty sure the feds don't involve itself with operating or assisting private military schools.
Whether or not the federal would be involved in supplying a place like Bunker Hill Academy, there is no way in hell it would furnish it with full-functioning automatic weapons (M16A1 rifles, M2 HMGs, M60 MG), M26 frag grenades, and (talk about suspension of disbelief) 81mm mortars. About 20 years ago when I was a tank crewman in the Marines, those of us who owned their own privately-purchased firearms were forbidden to store them in our barracks rooms; we were required to register them with the battalion armorer and store them in the armory itself. That, despite the fact we were all members of one of the most highly-trained and well-disciplined military organizations on Earth, bar none.
Besides the obvious issues of legal liability that this arrangement proposes, the government would then find itself obligated-- probably by federal law, simple common sense, or both-- to see to it that the weapons were not only kept in a secure building, but guarded 24/7/365 by a crew of qualified (and armed) professional security officers, likely from a 3rd-party civilian contractor charging the feds a hefty fee for their services.
The amount of available real estate maintained by the academy for weapons training-- which presumably would involve firing them, thus requiring a generous "buffer zone" to prevent errant ordinance from going high and wide and hitting the outlying town-- would likely dwarf the campus itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 ( talk) 07:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
For a group of young guys who were apparently well-drilled and well-versed in conducting a military operation, the manner in which they set up defensive positions was awful to a degree that probably would have been the cadets' greatest risk factor. For starters: the gate was guarded by two sandbagged positions close to each other with armed troops packed into them like sardines, as if part of some attempt to assure maximum casualties once shooting commenced. In front of them: an barred opening built into the walls on either side of the gate, manned by a single cadet who-- as a result-- positioned directly in front the of sandbagged positions and in their direct line of fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.47.105 ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
At the time this movie was released, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were still hosting "Sneak Previews" on PBS. Ebert lavished the film with praise, but Siskel panned it. That surprised me, because I always considered Ebert the tougher of the two critics. I don't remember all Siskel said about the movie, but I remember him using the word "laughable", and not in a complimentary sense. 76.6.218.158 ( talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)