Change my mid: militia clause 2nd amendment

I was thinking of another post recently, and I have drafted what I think is a different approach to debating the second amendment.

Here is the text

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And I will concede the following points

1) the first clause is referring to a militia that no longer is needed or exists

2) Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. And intended the amendment to be void when that militia no longer existed.

Here is my question and position....so what? They failed at what they intended, never articulated their intent, and wrote an individual right instead. Tough break.

What is the argument that the amendment should be read as gun regulation advocates argue? How do you make the jump from those concessions to your position rather than mine?