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

I see nothing confusing with this statement. Our forefathers learned a valuable lesson, which this line specifically addresses; A bully with an unfair advantage over another will cash in on that advantage by persecuting the weaker or disadvantaged. It is human nature to gain advantage for themselves, this statement merely evens the playing field, so to speak, and allows at least a percentage of that advantage to be mediated. Oppressors come in many forms, and the "free state" says to me that a government could be the oppressor if the wrong influence is in power. A quick look at any dictatorship (think Hitler or Mao Tse Tung or ...) or socialist regime like Venezuela should be enough evidence of that.

The purpose of the second amendment goes beyound personal self defense, but includes self defense against the government should it become a government for the governing and not of a government by and for the citizens. The founding fathers, though founding this government were very conscience that all government can become oppressive thus we the people should never be striped of our ability to overthrow an oppressive government.

I'm good with the Constitution just as it is, for now. It's got all you need right there, and I expect that it'll hold up fine in the long run.

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.
Seems clear to me. The US Armed Forces are not a Militia, it is a formal military force, which includes the reserves and National Guard. A Militia is a civilian force, and in is most commonly unorganized or semi-organized. The idea behind the 2A is a civilian check and balance against an imposing government. Hunting, sports shooting, etc. are not mentioned but are part of 2A due to the training aspects of both.

Leave it alone. The founders were brilliant.

"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".
A militia by definition is made up of civilians. A militia would typically be fighting against a tyrannical government. If private citizens were not allowed to keep and bear arms where would we get them to fight against the tyranny? draw them from the tyrannical government armory?

The reference to a well regulated militia is important ... BUT ... the gun control idiots don't understand it. When the Bill of Rights was written ALL able bodied men were considered members of the militia. It was NOT that time's version of the National Guard. It was expected that all male citizens maintain and have ready, arms. Back then the assault rifle was a musket or Kentucky (I prefer Pennsylvania) rifle.

So, don'r screw with the constitution. Educate the ignorant.

Absolutely not

No other article of the Bill of Rights, has ever been so criticised so much as the 2nd Amendment. Congress, the citizens of this country and the military hsve no choice but to let this amendment stand as is, for the last two hundred odd years. There is no desparite need to reword this amendment for any reason. And if it should be re-worded, let it include the hired body guards of all politicans, including POTUS, present and past.

If you feel you have to change it to make it say what you think it does, then it doesn't mean what you think it does...

To be honest there is no confusion about that first sentence it says clearly the people so the second amendment was designated to advocate personal ownership of firearms there is nothing confusing about that.