Aside from the Second Amendment, what are the logically and evidence-supported arguments for uninfringed firearm possession?

Unfringed? That's a strange choice of words...however, I'll answer your question by sending you to another of our Constitutional Amendments. The 18th Amendment, which prohibited the production, transport, and sale of alcohol within the United States. It didn't work and neither has, does, or would the banning guns in America. You might ask why? Because criminals do not obey laws! Take away guns and you take away the means of defense by the weak over the strong and the immoral. Of course most Americans are not criminals so when you take away their guns you make them easy prey. On a side note the NRA started out defending the rights of black Americans in the South to own guns so they could protect themselves from the KKK (it's true...you can look it up).

You might then want to argue that if we could magically remove all guns from America, things would be better. But that's not true either. Look at England where their death by violence rates went up dramatically after banning guns. The criminals just changed weapons. I'm not even going to mention the ongoing disaster that America's big cities have become after enacting strict gun control on their law abiding citizens. Remember that criminals don't care about obeying gun control laws, they just want to take what you have and sometimes all they want is to hurt you and your family.

Interesting question and very thought provoking. The only thing I can really say, without evidence on hand, is that criminals can attack at anytime and place. If you live in a state like California, where you have a mostly disarmed populous, they honest hard work citizens have no defense because the police cannot be present 24/7 for all criminal activity that happens. In Utah, its much easier to get a CFP (Concealed Firearms Permit) and you don't see blood in the streets from the legal citizens. Its still the criminals that offer up the majority of the violence and in Utah, you never know who is armed. Criminals are cowards, and someone intent on harming lots of people, prefer to do it in an environment of their choosing, where getting shot back at is at a minimal.

For my supporting evidence, the theatre shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Pulse Nightclub. All of these are locations where gun free zones were established. Gun laws will stop a law abiding citizen that does not want to be arrested. They will never stop a criminal. Being able to defend yourself, as you are the first responder in an incident you are involved in, is not a hard thing to understand, at least not for me.

The concept of Militia began in America in the 16oos. The Militia in each English colony included every able-bodied male aged 16-45. Every member was responsible to provide his own weapons, which originally included a matchlock musket and a sword. As firearm development continued, matchlock muskets turned into flintlock muskets, and then flintlock rifles, followed by percussion muskets and percussion rifles. These firearms advancements can be traced through the purchases of firearms by the British Army, the Continental Army, and the U.S. Army. The militia in the British colonies in North America were typically armed with similar, if not identical firearms as the British Army. By the time of the American Revolution, the common soldiers in the militias and the British Army were armed with the "Brown Bess" musket. After the Revolution, the concept of Militia continued and the Militia Act of 1792 called for all members of the Militia in each state to be issued a long arm at Federal expense. It was SOP to arm the militiamen with the same weapons that the Regular Army soldiers carried. This concept of arming the militia with Army weapons continued throughout the 1800s as firearms development went through single shot rifles with paper cartridges, lever action carbines, to bolt action rifles. In the 1900s, both the militia and Regular Army were using the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle during WWI until it was replaced by the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle during WWII and the Korean War. The militia morphed into the Army National Guard after WWI, but the idea of the Militia did not change. Just because a person has never served in the uniformed services, including the National Guard, does not mean that there is no militia. Just like from the 1600s until WWI, the Militia includes all able-bodied men aged 16-45. Since there is no current mechanism for these people to be armed at government expense, they will need to provide their own weapons. It makes sense that these weapons be of the same quality as the current weapons issued to the military, not the muskets of 1792 as some have said that the 2nd Amendment refers to. I hope this has been helpful to this discussion. Any errors are my own.