Art, I've always theorized that the only reason in-the-home and on-the-street defense wasn't specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment is because that was simply assumed.
I'd argue that the vagueness of the 2A regarding self-defense was a matter of compromise between colonies such as Pennsylvania, whose state constitution of that time explicitly articulates a right to individual self defense, and those such as Massachusetts, whose constitution of that era explicitly confers the right to keep and bear for the common defense, not the individual.
Though most of the state constitutions of the era speak of the militia and not the right to individual self defense, several mention the deleterious effect of standing armies on liberty.
The argument that the 2A is anachronous because the militia has been supplanted by a professional standing army assumes that having a professional standing army is
a) a good thing
b) constitutional
I disagree with both those notions.
But this entire argument rests on the militia clause and does not address definitions of 'the people.'
SCOTUS, in deciding
Yick Wo v. Hopkins(1886) and that 'the people' is so inclusive as to include non-citizens of the united states- that the framers intention in using 'the people' was to enumerate the rights as human rights, common to all people everywhere. Thus, the use of 'the people' in the 2A is the same as the use of 'the people' in the 1A. 'The people' means individuals at large, not 'the state,' as in
The People v. Lemmy Caution.
Below are relevant clauses from the 13 colonies plus VT, which was an independent republic at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights (note that some of the states did not have state constitutions until much later):
CT (1818): SEC. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
NH (1776): Unmentioned in the original constitution. Article 2-a regarding right to keep and bear arms added in 1984.
NJ (1776): Silent on the subject, with the exception that article X states that the captains of the militia are elected by their companies, a rather bottom up style of management that would seem to imply that the authority of the militia is conferred by the consent of armed citizens, rather than the notion that the privilege of bearing arms is granted by the consent of the statist militia.
GA (1777): ART. XXXV. Every county in this State that has, or hereafter may have, two hundred and fifty men, and upwards, liable to bear arms, shall be formed into a battalion; and when they become too numerous for one battalion, they shall be formed into more, by bill of the legislature; and those counties that have a less number than two hundred and fifty shall be formed into independent companies. (the term liable is defined as 'legally responsible to')
DE (1776): The only reference to arms in the DE constitution states that 'To prevent any violence or force being used at the said elections, no person shall come armed to any of them,' implicit in this the idea that citizens very well might bear arms at all other times.
ME (1820): Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. (n.b. Maine's constitution was not ratified until 1820)
NY (1777): Silent on the subject.
NC (1776): XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (note that while a collectivist tone exists, the people have the right to bear arms, but there is a big distinction and general opposition here between the people and the military).
PA (1776): XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
SC (1776): Silent on the subject.
VA (1776): Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (note here the term 'body of the people,' as opposed to the abstract 'The People,' oft read as a synonym for 'The State,' as in 'The People vs. Lemmy Caution.' Again, here we're talking about a voluntary militia of private, armed citizens in contradistinction to a standing army.)
RI (1842): Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (no mention of militia here, 'the people' is not 'The People.' Rhode Island's constitution was not ratified until 1842)
MD (1867): Silent on the subject. (though articles 28-30 imply a great distinction between a 'militia' and a 'standing army' that could be read to mean that a 'militia' is composed of private citizens with private arms. After all, what is the difference between an army that controls access to arms and a militia that does? Also, the MD constitution was not ratified until 1867.)
MA (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. (this would be the most explicitly collectivist reading of the right to bear arms and is unique among the original 13 colonies' constitutions)
VT (1777): XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.