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

37 states are needed to ratify and it takes a long time. Liberals are hoping for an Australia loner massacre situation to take guns and ammo away from the non-criminals. Jerry Brown and Jerry's liberal kids legislature tried and the supreme court said no you can't on the over 10 shot magazine ban after the 2014 Xmas party terrorists in San Bernardino attack had weapon and 30 round magazines from Nevada but Jerry's Liberal Kids decided to punish Californians instead.

No. The US Constitution is not some reg needing updating. Its a flexible document designed to go with changes as society changes. The drafters never expected it to be interpreted as carved in stone. The people's right to bear arms doesn't have to be infringed, but there can be reasonable restrictions attached to that right. This can include mandatory training because the founding fathers would agree that a well prepared militia is better than any unskilled bunch of rabble. Registration should be required, if for no other reason than to deter the general public from committing an offense and keeping the weapon as the framers intended, self defense and the like. Governments are also free to issue licenses so weapons are properly permitted by responsible gun owners and the gov't can charge for that service. In this same way government could set a reasonable limit on annual ammunition purchases for home defense and tax heavily any purchases over that amount. I won't worry about "if the enemies parachute in like Red Dawn" we can hand out ammo later. In the military, Commanders can restrict the carrying of firearms on their installation, we have security to provide for folks on base so people can check them in when they come on base, like a cop does when he walks into a jail.

My point is, we don't need to change a thing in the Constitution -- look how bad Prohibition worked out for everybody, we just need to establish intelligent solutions.

Currently, the Second Amendment can be read in a variety of ways, as evidenced by countless arguments by self-styled Constitutional experts. However, nobody actually wants to ask the Constitutional experts of record (the Supreme Court), because there's a good change they wouldn't like the clarification provided. For the same reason certain firearm-related cases never make it to the Supreme Court, I doubt we'd ever agree on a rewrite.

Why? I understand it just fine and so does my family. It is quite clear, as far as I am concerned, as to what it says. For those who cannot read and comprehend plain English, use a dictionary. I believe we do still have those, online even. My mother taught my siblings and I to research anything that we didn't understand and I taught this to my children. Simple study of what was written, the meaning of the words, how they were used ,very easy to do. We used to be taught how to do this in school, too.
Leave the 2nd Amendment alone. To change it could lead to wording it in a way the could take away our rights. We don't have to guess what the writers meant, they were clear. I have heard the argument about needing to fit into 'changing times'. While times have changed, the need to to protect life, limb, and liberty have not. It does mean we abuse these right by just attacking/adsaulting people. It just means that if attacked/assaulted we will respond, with force if necessary.
Children were once taught gun safety in schools. Now, they are taught to fear guns, that guns are bad. What's next? There are gun safety rules for a reason. Each of my children knows them, and understands them. They have have been taught about the 2nd Amendment and what it means.
My husband, older son and I are all veterans who stand ready to defend our Constitution, our family, our friends, our country, and all rights the Amendment afforded us. My other children stand ready to do the same.
I say leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

It is only confusing if you ignore the historical context, the contemporary usage of words, and US Code. The word regulated was understood in the 1700s to mean trained. The USC still specifies two militias, a formal militia, defined as the National Guard, and an informal militia, defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 17 1/2 and 47. (I may be off a little on the ages, it's been a while since I looked at it.

The argument over the meanings of the words in the second amendment show the need for teaching American History, with emphasis on original word-meanings. I had history courses in grade school, and in high school there were mandatory Constitution and American History classes; the American History course was reserved for during the senior year. From what I read, it seems those courses are no longer taught.

Are we talking about updates, really updates. Updates shouldn't scare American's; however it should frighten the psuedo patriotic ones.

Party politics on gun control is weak and old. The unchanging traditional South America (Southern States) have a unhealthy grip on gun rights, and that needs to change. White Americans occupy our list of founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but last I checked current law makers are represented by all creeds and colors. Is it possible that the old antiquated laws need a second look. Shit last I checked the gad damn voting rights law on the books ain't representative of the current American melting pot. Oh, now I get it...as long as the outdated U.S (Un.Scritinized) Constitution represent those it was originally deaigned to protect, then the rest of American's should just deal with it. Please...take that ole klan thinking back to hell.
The laws need a second look, if for no other reason to validate that they are relevant to the current American demographic.

The sky is no longer the limit, go beyond!!!

Honestly, we could probably really use another constitutional convention. And I say this as someone who has extensively studied the constitution and seriously admire it and the process behind creating it.

We the people are the well regulated militia.
The 4th gets stomped on all the time. The IRS don't need no stinking warrant. IRS takes and the highest court in the land does not hear appellant tax cases.

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?