The second amendment is irrelevant- [View all]

It applies only to a standing militia-to keep the nation secure. Our standing army makes this stuff obsolete.
I think referring to the 2nd is not valid at all. It has nothing to do with now-BUT

A person wanting to use a gun as self-defense is very relevant. I support it. This is sensible.
I think if pro-gunners want to make valid arguments about carrying firearms, the 2nd amendment needs to be never mentioned. It rings hollow. The people who argue that guns are necessary just in case the government steps out of line seem to be delusional, at least to me.
An argument needs to be made that has nothing to do with this throwback.
AS I said, I think a person does have the right to self-defense using a gun-nothing to do with a militia.

So-how do you make a legal argument without invoking the 2nd? I am sure this has been done, but can someone explain it to me a bit?