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

Leave it alone!! As precise as (I believe) the Constitution is, SCOTUS is always making legal rulings that make you think they are either 1) reading a different document, or 2) bending words to enable a specific political agenda (for either party). Care to guess which possibility I lean towards?

Here's the problem with the 2nd Amendment in my eyes: the Framers of the Constitution did not maintain a standing Army and thus needed to rely on local militias who would in turn outfit themselves for combat. That meant owning a gun. Did they mean that all people should be allowed to buy a rifle at Wal-Mart? We can't know. The courts are supposed to try to interpret the Constitution, but times change and verbiage that may have once been innocuous is a sudden hot point of debate. The "militia clause" could be interpreted to mean that only law enforcement and the military are guaranteed the right to own a weapon. But this is only an issue because the use of militias has been supplanted by the formation of the standing forces and law enforcement agencies we now have.

In that same vein, the 4th Amendment limits the governments access you your home. But there are a surprising number of politicians who believe that access to information for the police is more important than being able to have a risqué photo of your significant other on your phone with out Uncle Sam knowing. One of the common arguments is that the Framers didn't know about the capability to transmit and store information we have means the interpretations of the 4th Amendment must shift.

For what it's worth, for as many "liberals" that try to limit 2nd Amendment protections, there are just as many "conservatives" trying to undermine the 4th. I think a different discussion needs to happen before we talk about revising the Bill of Rights. Namely, do interpretations of the Constitution need to change to reflect the capabilities of the parties concerned? This is, in my humble opinion, a more basic and more important question that we need to answer first.

Some of the expressions used in the Constitution do require some interpretation; words and expressions that were common in 1789 are not quite so clear two hundred years later. The problem is, if the Bill of Rights is to be modernized, who should we trust to modernize it "properly?" Could a glossary of old terminology and words suffice to clarify the meanings? Maybe The Federalist Papers should abbreviated to become the Constitution? I do like the initial suggestion for the 2nd Amendment proposed by MSgt Cater.

If you have to change it to make it say what you want it to say, then it doesn't say what you want it to....

Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase? NO!!!! Since I was a little boy I have been obsessed with history especially military history. The genius of the Second Amendment actually predates the American Revolution and the foundation of the United States and the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1789. It is actually something which to the very early colonial period.

In the first four years of the French Revolution created turmoil in the nation's armies, and were characterized by revolt, mutiny, counter-revolution, and largescale emigration within the aristocratic officercorps.1 The catastrophic defeat of General Charles François Du Périer Dumouriez (1739–1823) at Neerwinden in March 1793 seemed to nullify the effects of previous army reform and brought back the spectre of foreign invasion.2 The levée en masse of 23 August 1793 was the French Convention's direct response to this looming crisis. It ambitiously declared that:

From this moment and until all enemies are driven from the territory of the Republic all French persons are placed in permanent requisition for the service of the armies. The young men will go to battle, married men will forge arms and transport provisions; women will make tents and clothing and serve in the hospitals; children will shred old linen; old men will have themselves carried to public places to arouse the courage of warriors and preach the hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic.
At its most apparent and superficial level, this compelling and extraordinary legislation sought to assemble recruits for an army of 750,000 men, and to create a logistic framework of sufficient magnitude to support such an unprecedented military establishment.4 Although these tangible goals were of fundamental importance, this mass mobilization was to be much more than a mere drive to extract manpower and strategic resources from the French population.
Compulsory military service, or at least the sovereign's right to compel his subjects to enlist in the armed forces, was nothing new in either French or European history. Indeed, the ancien régime monarchy's imperfect recruitment and militia system had enabled France to field some of the largest armies of the early modern period.5 Despite the apparent achievements of Louis XIV's (1638–1715) armies during the grand siècle, by the late eighteenth century it was felt that fundamental reforms were necessary.6 Military analysts like Joseph Servan (1731–1807) and the counts of Guibert (Charles Benoît, 1715–1786), and Saint Germain (Claude Louis, 1707–1778) , affirmed that institutional reorganization, or the introduction of Prussian-style tactics and discipline, was insufficient to break the stagnation into which venality, poor leadership and ill-trained troops had plunged the royal army-of-the-line. A new military 'spirit' had to be instilled into the nation at large.
These writers, inspired by classical antiquity, believed that, through education and training, the subjects of the king could be transformed into citizen soldiers. Universal military service in an enlightened polity placed the entire population of the nation at the disposal of the state, thus providing a potentially inexhaustible source of manpower. It was further hoped that these troops, who were patriotic, intelligent and highly-motivated, would be able to decisively influence the outcome of any battle. This proposal was certainly inspired by the Enlightenment's broader strategy of defining a new civic identity, which would expand participation in public administration and thus create a more benign system of governance.
The levée en masse was the culmination of this long-standing call for the creation of a new military culture. The Constituent Assembly had already introduced the principle of merit in the promotion system of officers. There had also been experiments in creating volunteer legions and a more humane code of military discipline. Despite the publicity accorded to these innovations, their efficacy on the battlefield failed to materialise.9 The fall of the Constitutional Monarchy and the radicalization of Republican politics gradually allowed the Jacobins to urge more far-reaching reforms.10 They felt that previous attempts had not gone far enough in bringing the spirit and energy of the 1789 Revolution to the army. They viewed with suspicion bordering on obsession the remaining noble officers and white-uniformed veterans of the old royal army. They were certain that battlefield failures were due to a refusal, on the part of traditional elements within the military, to push forward reforms. Only by imbuing the army with revolutionary zeal could this situation be reversed.
The Jacobins claimed the levée en masse was not an instrument of state coercion, but an extraordinary recruitment measure intended to harness the French people's pre-existing enthusiasm, patriotic fervor and ideological commitment to the Revolution.11 The levée was a complex formula in which political ideology was transformed into a secret weapon which would ultimately result in the Revolution's triumph over ancien régime despotism.
The dissymmetry between the physical realty and the ideological claims of the levée has been the subject of significant debate and controversy. Although many historians dispute the actual numbers of the army created in

In 1912 the Swiss Army included 281,000 men and could call on an additional 200,000 auxiliary troops…Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany visited Switzerland that year. As the Kaiser observed Swiss army maneuvers, Swiss President Ludwig Forrer told his guest that “we have the resolute intention of protecting our independence against any attack on this land, our dearest possession, and of upholding our neutrality against anyone who fails to respect it.” In a conversation depicted on a contemporary post-card, the Kaiser queried what the quarter of a million Swiss Army would do if faced with an invasion of Switzerland by half a million German troops the Swiss President replied “shoot twice”.
Can you imagine the New York Times publishing an account of a 13-year old girl who won the City’s military rifle competition, being congratulated by the mayor? Not today, but a century ago the U.S. President did so. None other than Teddy Roosevelt congratulated the New York schoolboy who was the best rifle shot of the year. His message was reprinted in Why School Boys Should Be Taught to Shoot? (1907), by Gen. George Wingate, head of the N.Y. Public Schools Athletic League and NRA founder. Wingate had occasion to note: “Switzerland has no regular army, but depends for her defense on her riflemen.” Zurich’s youngsters who shoot military rifles have a lesson to teach Americans. It is a lesson of peace, family values, and responsibility, while gaining the ability to defend oneself and one’s community from aggression. As was well known to America’s Founders, who were enamored of the Swiss model, teaching the young to shoot is both a civic virtue and a wonderful sport.
One of the things which amuses me the most is the ignorance of practitioners of the profession of arms of history keeps haunting military professionals. Has anyone ever wondered why you practice drill and ceremonies especially passing in revue before senior officers on a reviewing stand? Once upon a time when the colonels raised their regiments at their own expense and then the government reimburses him for his expenses and pays his troops’ salaries. The Kings’ Commissioners counted the actual number of troops present. Does anyone remember “ghost soldiers” in Afghanistan?

If people took the time to "actually" understand English there would not be the big discussion. It's not ambiguous, it's clear. The only people that think it's ambiguous are the ones that malign gun owners, police and the military. The same people cry like whiny babies when anything bad happens and they need to be defended. The Democrat Governor Ann Richards understood.

How about clarifying the original intent?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of all men of appropriate age, physical and mental capacity, being designated as such, to bear arms in defense of said state, shall not be infringed"

Amend to replace the word "right" with "responsibility"

I believe that clarifying the 2nd aement is an excellent idea. Also, there must be some sort of federally mandated training course that must be passsed by anyone wanting to legally purchase a firearm. This training would include a psychological evaluation.
The penalty for being caught with a illegally aquired gun must be more severe. A lot of veterans may disagree with this, but think about how you had to prove that you could be trusted with love ammo in basic training/boot camp before you were allowed to live fire on the range. Everyone needs to be held to the same high standard if they wish to have the responsibility of owning a weapon.

The first part of the amendment justifies the Selective Service System. Note that draft boards are on the county government level: the federal government establishes a levy and the counties respond by naming their candidates, choosing them from amongst the unorganized militias (males in the age range established by the draft decree). The wording is quite tricky, but its meaning is established by use.