The grabbers have been saying for years that the only application for an “assault rifle” is “killing large numbers of people.”
My counter was to point out that cops had “assault rifles” and ask whether the cops read these people their rights before they killed them ?
In all fairness, under what circumstances is a Chicago PD street officer going to need a fully- or even semi-automatic rifle with a range and penetration factor greater than he can see?
If you think people get upset when a cop makes a good shoot on a bad guy, wait until a child gets killed by a police ricochet or over-penetration by an assault rifle.
Taking them away from the cops after that will only add more fuel to the movement to take them away from citizens. And I don’t think the MSM or Obamanation will come to our aid.
When the suspects are wearing body armor or have modified their vehicle to resist pistol calibers.
If you think people get upset when a cop makes a good shoot on a bad guy, wait until a child gets killed by a police ricochet or over-penetration by an assault rifle.
Definitely a risk, and I would assume the reason the rifles were generally confined to SWAT before.
Could police misfortune/misuse be used as an excuse to remove semi-autos from the landscape? Sure.
Police posession of these firearms might even be seen as the reason gangs have even better, more capable arms.
No matter what happens, the libs will find a way to use it against gunowners, and this might be as set-up all the way.
I only hope the police are aware of that and act carefully.
For some people, having a bad guy get shot is far worse than having an innocent get killed.
“My counter was to point out that cops had “assault rifles” and ask whether the cops read these people their rights before they killed them ?”
Not necessary, they only have to do that to arrest them not kill them.