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

Leave it as it is. Look for the definition of the terms from a 1700's dictionary and it will remain unambiguous without modification. It is NOT what your definition of IS, is, but the definition known to the framers of teh Constitution!

No, it's only confusing to those who wish to think it is for political reasons. Amending the Bill of Rights would only encourage progs/statists of both major parties to try and "clarify" other parts of the Constitution too.

I think it should stand as it is, because it is not at all confusing unless you twist it to be. Just like studying biblical hermeneutics, you must read it as it was written to the audience of the time. They were speaking of a God-given right here, not some insignificant local law, and they wanted to ensure that those rights would be upheld as long as the Constitution was in effect--very far-reaching thinking based on historical precedents. In truth, I think that a possible solution to our gun rights issue in this country would be to use the Swiss pattern of self-defense, and have every state form local militias and supply able-bodied citizens with defensive weapons and ammo, as well as regular training, to mount a defense, if required, when the National Guard isn't around. Posse Comitatus would not allow regular US armed forces to take control in every locality in the country unless martial law was declared--that would not work so well in the US. I think it would also be beneficial in teaching citizens of their personal responsibilities and would go far as to removing the objectification of weapons as intrinsically evil, but teach people gun safety, practice, and ownership responsibilities. It would also teach citizens that, ultimately, safety and security in their own communities is a shared responsibilities. Some may say that I'm a dreamer...

I appreciate the thought that goes into making things clearer. People who want to do away with personal weapons will be against them no matter what the 2nd Amendment says. The only thing a modification to the wording will do is solidify each side to the for/against arguments.

Do not touch a letter of the 2nd Amendment. Opening that question would result in a storm of gun haters ju
Ping in to destroy it utterly. Just leave well enough alone.

No.

Want an explaination as to why I disagree with a change. See the Oathkeeper Youtube site - Videos - Molon Labe. Vidwo is very good explanation of why the Second Amendment, as it is written, is the foundation for the security of our free Republic. Take the time. It's worth the listen. Taz - out.

In a word - no. It is perfectly clear, unambiguous and well written in completely understandable English. The last thing we need is for a bunch of post revisionist changes to make the language "clearer".

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Currently 11 states have signed up for the Convention of States (Texas being the latest last week). The problem is that when such a convention if formed, all bets are off on what amendment is modified, eliminated or created. Such a convention can even pass an amendment to dissolve the Union. The writers of our Constitution were smart and savvy. This is dangerous stuff. I strongly suggest leaving it alone.

IMHO it is already clear. Leave it be. Those who would claim otherwise are the same people trying to disarm the masses to make it easier for them to control. They seize upon that first phrase in an obtuse attempt to justify their position when their real purpose is to confuse the facts so they can delete the whole amendment. The Constitution as it is written should be left alone. Semper Fidelis.