>>64130232
>>64130312
But what I was really getting at, in that first post was:
Do criminals possessing machine guns, actually *present a safety hazard to the LEOs* that are performing operations?
That's what I meant by giving them, the law enforcement agencies themselves and their field personnel, *additional incentive* to "crack down on MGs" because it's such an increased magnitude of physical hazard in comparison to same gangbangers using semiauto firearms. What is the difference, to them (the LEOs) if any in the field? Are they more 'threatened' by hoodrats having MGs than if <--they did not (because the hoodrats already are deadly enough w/ semiautos)?
I'm not seeing how these astronauts having machine pistols makes them *that much more hazardous* to most LEOs doing their job in the field daily, than they already are without handheld MGs (or any other type of full auto). Let alone hazardous enough to think that:
>'Due to the machine gun hazard in Chiraq at the present time, all patrolling officers will now enforce the 1934 National Firearms Act to the full extent of the law'
Why would that type of 'additional danger' to patrolling LEOs, from glock switches (the LEOs and public are already in enough danger from recidivist hoodrats w/ their stolen guns as it is) make them, as street-beat cops, 'more gung ho' about enforcing NFA?
It's not a public safety (or LEO officer safety) issue, is what I'm saying. MGs don't make street violent crime 'more dangerous'/deadly than it already fucking is. Or at least, law enforcement agencies at the local level can't make up an excuse or reasoning, or document, that it is.
(Yes the selective prosecution / piling on charges-or not after the fact is an issue with regard to skin color of the perp and the corrupt justice system up-the-chain of prosecutors, DAs etc. This, rather, is about whether or not the LEO agencies themselves and their personnel feel 'additionally threatened' by MGs in the field)