Sounds like we had the same childhood; grew up around guns (mainly the farmers on my mom's side), my first .22 at ten - they'd give me a box of .22 shorts and send me outside while the adults visited - haha.

The bigger question I think is: why are weapons necessary in a civilized world. Unfortunately the answer is not much separates us from lawlessness, violence and tribalism. Imagine what would happen here just in the US, especially in large urban areas, if the entire power grid completely went down for a year. As individuals, humans for the most part are pretty darn great; kind, generous, willing and eager to help others in need. As members of various groups, we humans are a fucked-up lot in more ways than I can list. While the technological world of 2019 is unrecognizably different from 200 (or more to the point, 500) years ago, humans themselves are pretty much the same as 1000 years ago, and boy did we do some bad shit to each other for some really stupid (mostly religion-based) reasons back then.

So - why do we need weapons at all? To protect ourselves from each other until we as humans evolve into beings that act in groups like we act as individuals - or to protect the world itself from real alien invasions I guess.

Why do civilians need military weapons? We don't unless the 2nd amendment means we should be prepared to join our state militias. But as you clearly know, military-style = cosmetics. As long as they're semi-automatic, a relatively benign-looking Ruger Mini-14 is functionally the same as a totally tricked-out evil-looking AR-15 or AK-47 variant. Arguing against military-style weapons completely ignores this equivalence and makes those who know nothing about guns look dumb in the eyes of gun proponents (and rightly so I think) and also greatly contributes to gun proponents ignoring and opposing otherwise reasonable gun regulation proposals.

I believe the problem is magazine capacity - or maybe the real problem actually is detachable magazines. Why should we allow detachable magazines for rifles or pistols at all? I think there's a good chance such a restriction would pass 2nd amendment scrutiny. I also realize that it would take several generations at least for such a restriction to have its desired effect. But eventually it would and 'eventually' is the key word. There would be huge practical issues - the millions and millions of weapons already out there being the biggest - but eventually we would find ways to overcome those issues. Pie in the sky? Maybe so, but it'll only get worse if we don't try, and I'm not ready to throw my hands in the air and start buying guns again - for now my short-barrel Mossberg and a coupla old .22s will have to do.