LEO's rights are exactly the same as the rest of us. Period. They do not have any rights that the rest of us do not.
What to do have is certain privledges, and certain authority that the rest of us do not have. Because of their job.
Didn't you hear the VP the other day? "NO ONE needs 30 rnds!" TO me, that's clear, no one means no one. It does not mean no one except the police!
Of course, the VP is wrong, some people do need 30 rnds. But, what people need has no place in the discussion. I can find no place in our legal system that gives politicians the legal ability to determine, and restrict people to what they need.....
They do it, for certain things, and have done it for a long time, but that fact neither makes it legal, nor proper.
The other flaw in the gun control argument is the simple difference between ownership and illegal use. They all constantly refuse to see that. TO them, there is no valid legal use (their opinion) therefore, ownership is the guaranteed precursor to illegal use.
We have, and have had laws against shooting people for fun or profit since the founding of our nation (and before..), they do not stop people from shooting people. The do give us something to arrest them for, but they do not stop them. The law may deter many, but it stops no one who is determined to break the law.
Make no mistake, we are being discriminated against. Not becuase of the color of our skin, or our age, gender, religion, or even sexual identity, but because of the property we own. Or wish to own.
Ban the ARs! Buy a shotgun! That's what I hear them say. Of course, most of the people I hear saying that publically have paid armed security protecting their precious selves and families 24/7. And those people, in uniform, or out, paid to be the protectors, DO have ARs, and much, much more.
One law for them, another for us? How is that not Jim Crow in a different suit?
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.