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

I think if Congress touches the 2nd amendment they will take away our given rights to carry firearms. I believe it takes a 2/3 vote of The House of Representatives and 2/3 of Congress to pass or amend an amendment, unfortunately 2/3 of Congress can't agree on the time of day or what day of the week it is. I say leave it alone, the supreme court is swinging conservative and the court will uphold the 2nd Amendment. All Amendment are a little outdated but the spirit of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was to limit the power of the Federal Government and to give citizens certain rights I say leave it as is.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The problem with the Second Amendment is not its wording and it should never be amended because our Constitution is not a living document to be changed every time someone's opinion changes. The problem with the Second Amendment is that the citizens of the United States have been dumbed down to the point that they no longer understand our language, which is English. The moment we start changing the wording of our Constitution, we change the entire meaning of our freedom and our way of life. Chaos will ensue and that chaos will lead us into complete anarchy and total destruction as a free society. Leave the Constitution alone and educate our citizens.

I totally agree the rights we have under the second amendment is constantly under attack and individuals constantly take the opportunity to say we need more gun regulations when something happens. Guns are not the problem. Creating new laws and/or regulations is not going to change anything. What people do not realize is that criminals do not obey the laws on the books, honest individuals do. I like the caption, it is perfect

I say no- the 2nd amendment is just fine and very clear the way it is. I am one of those people who look at the intentions of the framers and what they sought to accomplish. Remember it's a Government for the people, by the people and OF the people. Those amendments are there for a reason. They where created to address shortcomings of the original Constitution.

I think that it is pretty clear. People who don't like the 2nd Amendment believe that government should have ultimate control. Those people are called Marxist-Leninists.

over 300,000,000 Guns.

The "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment is simply the statement of a reason (a damned good one) that the new-born Federal government would not WANT to infringe on the pre-existing "right of the people to keep and bear arms”, now stated and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. A Constitutional government would "cut its own throat" if it tried to disarm its people.
It would be against the self-interest of a Constitutional Government, greatly restricted concerning a “standing army” and dependent on the militia as its primary defense, to infringe on that RKBA, and thereby undermine the militia. It was from the armed citizenry that the militia was drawn. That militia might very well be all that stood between the officers of that Government and a jail cell ---- or the gallows.
The militia was the Founder's answer to the question ''If the citizens will not defend the state, then who will?" Indeed, if mercenaries with no loyalty but to their profit, are required to defend the state because the citizens don't care, then either the citizens have abandoned the state, or the state has abandoned its citizens.
An armed citizenry can not only defend a Constitutional Government of, for, and by the people, from both foreign and domestic enemies, but can defend itself from a government that usurps the Constitution and turns despotic.
A Constitutional Government welcomes an armed citizenry that will preserve and defend it. A despotic government fears the people with guns at hand, who can end that despotism.

We need to leave the 2A as it is. We need to leave the entire bill of rights as they are. Messing with the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole opens up everything to be rewritten. That is why I'm against a Convention of the States. After a Convention of the States, it takes 3/4s of all the states (38 of 50 states) to amend anything in the Constitution. Congress is not involved in the States Convention. Each state has a voice, but bigger liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and California will demand a bigger seat at the table at the expense of the small conservative states, pushing to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Liberals hate guns (unless it is their guns), freedom of speech, religion, press (that does not agree with the liberal agenda), or the right to assembly (unless it is for a liberal cause). They also hate the 10A, State's Rights.
In a Convention of the States every word in the Constitution and all of its Amendments, as well as the Federalist's papers are on the table. We cannot allow that camel to get his nose under the tent wall. I like the Constitution just as it is.

What? What's so confusing?