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

What is the basis of your proposal? As for now, I cannot see the need to change it. What needs to be changed is the discussion about gun control.

It would not fix the problem because the Liberals don't understand simple English. They will always say what they "believe" it means, not what it actually means.

Look how seldom 38 States agree on something. If the naive governor Jerry Brown's of the United States got together to agree on this is going to take decades but in the meantime the bad guys don't care and laugh at Progressive but will still have guns and will continue to kill and this is true even here in Canada.

In order for some to fully understand why certain words and phrases were used in the creation of the Constitution, one would need to place themselves in the same time period the Constitution was created. Some words and phrases had different meanings than they do today, obviously. This link is to an article I found that analyzes the terminology (specifically, the 2nd Amendment) used and how it could possibly have been intended to read and how it would translate to today's definitions of the words and phrases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Once you open it up to being revised the changes would get out of meaningful hand.

The militia part can be somewhat confusing. It can theoretically be used to say that only those in the National Guard/Reserve are allowed to own firearms (which I obviously don't agree with).

What many people either forget or never knew is that in Colonial times, the militia was every able bodied man capable of using a firearm. Thus the militia was "the people" as a whole. Any serious study of the Founding Father's writing from the time make it clear that they intended for everyone to have the right to own firearms.

It is only confusing to those who do not study history.

The first phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the founding fathers recognizing that the government needs an armed force to orotect itself. The second phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is the Founders recognizing the people must have the ability to protect itself from the militia (under the control of the government).

Their experience was that England took away their guns and made it easier to control them.

I consider it clear and unambiguous as it is. The problem lies in the common historical malpractice of modernism. This is the practice of examining historical events and documents as if they had occurred or been written today, rather than in the past. It is only in trying to ascribe today's definitions to the words of the past that we start confusing people regarding what the intent and meaning of those past words were. That's the technique that the communist (Gasp! I used the "c" word, which describes what they are, instead of the "politically correct" euphemisms for communism, like "progressives" or "leftists" or "socialists"! Tsk! Tsk!) morons trying to undermine the 2nd amendment use.
There IS no ambiguity. The word "people" doesn't change in meaning from the first, to the second, to the fourth amendment. And the meaning of the introductory phrase has to be seen in the context of what those words meant AT THE TIME. So, since you've asked for opinions, here's mine: Leave it alone! It's been clear and unambiguous for over 200 years. No amount of communist braying today will change history.

As a nation, we have allowed the Second Amendment to become the bastard-child of the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, the intent of the Second Amendment is well documented. The Second Amendment is not a phrase to be bantered about like some prophesetical evangelist on a street corner. The militia and “we the people” are one-in-the-same. The people are armed so they may stand up against factions and tyranny that work to disrupt the free nation that was formed. The “shall not be infringed” is reference to any action by the government (federal or states) to inhibit the right of the people to bear arms. While times have changed, and our governments and society in general have become more civilized (so-to-speak), armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is the right of the people, no matter how unlikely it is to occur in our lifetime, or how much our nation has changed since the 1700’s. So I say, “No”, the 2nd Amendment is very clear on the right of the people and should not be amended in any fashion.

Um...no. The purpose of 2A isn’t home defense or self defense. It’s the preservation of a free state. If people can’t understand 2A, that’s an education problem.

What is confusing about it?

It's not confusing, just the media is trying to muddy it.

THE 2nd Amendment has worked for all there years, I do agree LEAVE IT AS IS....NUFF SAID

The revision of the 2nd amendment isn't necessary. What is necessary are revisiting the existing laws and enforcing them against known felons who illegally possess weapons. Close the loopholes that allow a purchase of weapons without a background check. And, at the same time put state and federal mandatory participation for background checks. Put in the mandatory requirement for mental health too. But for God's sake, punish those who have illegal weapons and use them in a crime. Stop mollycoddling the criminals. In the 1970's California had the death penalty and regularly executed prisoners for their crime. Then in the late 70's, it was abolished. Guess what happened? If you said "Violent crime went up" you are correct. Why? Because the criminal knew (s)he wouldn't be executed. California brought back the death penalty in the early 80's and the rate went down again.

SO, fix what is broken first!

The second amendment has served this country well for 200 plus years. This was put in the Constitution by our founding Fathers for a good reason. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

All I can do at this point is read these comments and laugh. My heart has ached for far too long over the hatred and division. So I've decided to just laugh, else I lose all hope in humanity. But what does it matter? I'm just a stupid libtard. A stupid, progressive, far left, LGBTQ loving, pro choice, Trump despising, climate change believing, feminist, GUN OWNING, snowflake. Only person in modern history who has stated the wanted to take anyone's guns away without due process is President Donald J. Trump. I dont know about you, but I'm not fond of the thought of him denying me my Constitutional right. But, it seeks to be his favorite thing to do--take away our rights, little by little, bit by bit.

offered IMHO only: The wording isn't the problem so much as it's the interpretation of the reader.

As the average reader is not likely to actually research the founding fathers and the origins of the wording, nor are they willing to accept the surrounding circumstances, then it means any and all changes to the wording today will come under the exact same interpretive discourse in the future.

no. The whole of the people is militia. that has been established in law so there is no need to change the wording, just educate the ignorant

I'm not sure it would make a huge difference. Look how the first, second, forth, tenth amendment fare. It's words on paper these days regardless of their supposed guarantee.