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

Problem people have with the second amendment is a: those who don't know what a well regulated militia is. b: the difference in weapons that were available then compared to now. Now since bush did away with most of the Brady bill, insane people can walk into bass pro and buy if they don't have a felony. I'm a gun owner but I want more regulations not less. I'm willing to give up my sks if necessary.

I think the problem is the meaning of "bearing arms." If arms means the weapons of war then no, we don't have that right under present law. As useful as guns can be for defense and possible resistance to a tyrannical government, we are not now bearing arms.

You bet, the Las Vegas shooter was a true patriot. What he needed was a few RPGs. When people are exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights, why involve the Police.

The original 2nd Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In contemplation of this amendment, I once came up with revised version that I believe makes the 2nd less ambiguous, specifically, that the militia is dependent on the people being armed. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the existence or use of the militia. The right exists with or without the militia, but without the right, the militia is useless. Hence my rewritten version of the 2nd Amendment as follows: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that they may be well prepared to secure a free State." I make no claim as to a perfected amendment, but I believe this is the base intent of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizenry be armed to secure their freedom and freedoms.

No place did I ever read GOD giving anyone the right to kill another. In fact I think it reads: "THOU SHALL NOT KILL".

In ANY assembly involving amending the Constitution, I always demand that ALL of the "Bill of Rights" be off limits.

No

I say , let the Left keep on their tirade. When it comes to a head, we can have the discussion based on how the majority of the nation interprets the 2A.

We do know it

Sp4 Byron Skinner. I will agree that the 2nd. Amendment has period applications that the country has sense outgrown. The right to bare arms in historical context didn't apply to everyone, think Slaves, many cities to include Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston S.C. etc has laws of no carry on the streets and when you entered town and owns a weapon you were expected to let the Elected Town Marshall, Sheriff or Constable know you had a weapon. Two principle reason until 1839 there wet no sworn paid law enforcement so when the Constable needed a posse he knew who had a weapon. Also if there was a problem with an household or an individual it was convent to ion if that person or household had a weapon (s). The second phrase was made obsolete by the National Guard Act. It is in the public interest to know who has weapons and what type and monitor the purchases of ammunition. If somebody is attempting to purchase ammunition for a weapon she/he doesn't own this could alert law enforcement of a straw purchase. And perhaps maybe somebody who legally can't own a weapon is not provided ammunition. A couple of points from the fire department first if the are approaching a burring home and hear the pop of bullets going off they will just back of and let it burn down. Also if you have large amounts of bullets (car lots) don't store them on a second floor or higher. they will hasten the collapse of upper floors during a fire.