From a "Strategy and Tactics" point of view ... maybe.
Certain full-auto firearms are very effective and appropriate for personal or home-defense. Small, compact submachine guns, and maybe even true assault rifles -- if the user is familiar with the best practices for their use -- could serve that purpose very well. It would be VERY arguable to maintain that they would be BETTER for self-defensive purposes than a repeating shotgun or a semi-auto carbine -- or even a more maneuverable handgun. All that would depend greatly on the situation, setting, and user.
But those are just a small sub-set of what the National Firearms Act recognizes as "machine guns." When you consider select-fire main battle rifles (FALs, G3s, M14s, etc., etc.) you're probably pretty far past the point of diminishing returns. Even the militaries that fielded those guns found little use for the average soldier running them on "full auto." They are difficult to control for almost all shooters. And, your home is not a war zone where suppressive fire is acceptable and "collateral damage" comes with the territory. And a large number of transferable machine guns are crew-served, belt-fed weapons (M-60s, M-2s, M-1919s, PKMs, Lewis guns, Maxims, etc., etc.). No place for those in home defense for 99.99% of us.
And, it all comes back to the question of value. If you can defend your home perfectly well with a $200 shotgun, why would you use a gun that cost five or ten times that -- knowing that if you ever have to shoot it at an attacker, it will probably spend years in a police locker, and you might never get it back at all?