Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?

I'm not confused in any way on this point. I completely concur and support the 2nd Amendment as written in its original intent. Just curious about others views on RP.
It's clear you have a very strong opinion on this to the point of cutting off debate. Thanks much for your input.

MSgt George Cater - seems like you were, since your rewrite completely stripped intent

Thanks for your input. Just asking opinions.

SGT Philip Klein -

SGT Philip Klein - •"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason - in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Remove that and they would be one step closer to total bans fo civilians. If they amend it it should read something like "every able bodied person who can legally carry own a fire arm has the right to own a firearm for defense. "
Defense being left open to the interpretation of the individual. MSgt George Cater -

The "confusion" is manufactured by those who simply do not want anyone (with the possible exception of themselves and their friends) to own guns.
The “Militia clause” is the statement of a very clear reason why the nascent Constitutional Federal Government, dependent on the militia drawn from the armed populace for its security, would not only not benefit, but would, in fact, endanger itself if it infringed on the pre-existing “right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

I'm fairly certain if war came to our soil every able bodied person would be in it. A civilian militia CW3 Harvey K. -

I'd be very cautious about trying to change the 2d Amendment. Once open to change, the lefty/progressive anti-gun side would jump on that process and changes would very likely come about that we wouldn't like. The pro-2A side is not so powerful that it could prevent that from happening. Trying to change the amendment would be sure to open a major can of worms.

That being said, I've never been able to figure out why I must have government permission to obtain, possess or carry arms when the amendment unambiguously says "the right of the people" "shall not be infringed." Yet, as things now stand, the 2d Amendment is the most regulated and infringed-upon of all our constitutional rights at all government levels. It's like anti-gun opponents of the Amendment are seeking to regulate it to the "death of a thousand cuts."