Normal, right and proper, is what you grow up with. And, of course, its all in your point of view.
Firm believers in personal liberty and responsibility believe unrestricted full auto ownership is our right, the same as it is our right to own any property. We have "evolved" (or possibly devolved) into a society where "need" is the criteria for ownership, and only the worst possible outcomes are considered to balance against percieved need.
Add into the mix the fact that guns, while intellectually mere pieces of personal property, are considered "dangerous". Totally ignored (in practical terms) is the human factor. NO gun ever injures or kills anything without a human being directly involved.
But instead of focusing on the user, we focus on the tool. We focus on "prevention", by prohibiting ownership (or making it so onerous that only a handful will and can afford to own them) instead of punishment of those who harm others. Some states flat outright prohibit private ownership of full auto firearms.
Hollywood has spent the majority of the last century increasing their portrayal of full auto firearms as common, and always used for evil. Every bad guy seems to have one. Interestingly enough, these horribly effective weapons, capable of mowing down masses of people with a single pull of the trigger seem incapable of being able to hit the action hero (or inflict more than a flesh wound), while single rounds fired by the hero drop bad guys like the hammer of the gods.
Consider that in the last several decades, ALL of the mass shootings, where dozens or more were killed, NONE of them was done with a full auto weapon.
Indeed since the NFA of 1934, the number of crimes (other than "conspiracy" to violate firearms laws, and record keeping errors) committed by legal full auto owners is less than the number of fingers on one hand.
There are thousands of legal full auto guns (perhaps tens of thousands?), and yet in over 75 years the number of murders and robberies done with these guns in the hands of their legal owners is virtually zero. 1, perhaps 2, in all that time. Something to think about.
As to the 2nd Amendment being our bulwark against a tryannical govt, it is not. All it does is provide a legal check on such a govt disarming the general populace. With today's technology, many make the argument that we could not win against our govt, because they have machine guns, tanks, jet fighters, etc. And on the open field of battle, they are probably right. But htat is not, and never has been the underlying issue. The simple fact that we could resist with arms is what prevents us from needing to. Sure, if it came down to it, we might lose, but it is the percieved cost of winning that keeps tyrants from making the attempt, with physical force.
I would suggest you read the novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. While fiction, there are a number of very good and valid ideas expressed in it. You might just get an insight into some other viewpoints.
Isn't a movie just a fully automatic book?