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

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?

I think it is pretty clear now. You can change the font of the comma if you like. Make it huge.

Nothing wrong with what the 2nd amendment currently states. Right to bear arms. Check. Right to defend oneself, property, and nation. Check. Right to have any kind of weapon, any caliber of weapon, any type of accessory, any rate of fire capability...uh, well, let either the State or Federal government define what arms one has the right to bear...right? That's how I view this issue.

Framers had a much better grasp on “the words” than citizens do today. Leave it alone. Really, when was the last time a modern legal expert founded the greatest and most enduring nation ever? That’s right, they didn’t.

If the removal of the 2nd Amendment is by the Constitutional Convention Amendment process, then those individuals that were sent to the convention are to be held in contempt, perhaps sued for dereliction, However, if, as it is being done by Litigants in the States Courts, and States Legislators; than those legislators, Judges, and Litigants, must be held for Libel and Contempt of the Oath they swore to uphold. Every elected official swears an oath to up hold the US Constitution, the States Constitution and the laws of the state [see Oath of Office by state and Federal].
Mayhap we citizens, may need to begin a campaign of Citizens Arrests, charging Treason on those who would deny the Constitution and the rights expressed therein.

The 2nd Amendment has been fine for nearly 200 years just the way it is and I see no reason to change a single word !! If you are of average intelligence and can read and do understand English you should not have a problem understanding "plain English" !!

I had a suicidal young Marine friend - my personal trainer - pull a weapon on me yesterday. What is the relationship between the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms - vs the right to have your fully loaded weapons readily accessible when you are in severe pain and wanting to end your life? We checked him into County Hospital ER - got him onto some anti-inflammatory meds - got him off strong opiates - and worked him up for everything from cardiac to infectious diseases. It looks like he may have an autoimmune disorder - needs bone marrow biopsy - will try to get that done in a day or two. But, his weapons are in the gun safe at my house now - except the M16 retained by security department. How do we reconcile the safekeeping of his weapons until he is well again under the 2nd amendment? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
CPT Jack Durish SSgt Christopher Brose SSG Robert Webster

Absolutely not! Leave it alone!

Leave it alone. It was wrote as it is for a reason. In old english, the , between State and the seperate them into 2 seperate articles. The 2nd is all about the people, and not about the .gov infringing (the 24,000+ gun laws in our country already do to much of this) on the rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment is the back bone of American Freedom. As long as the people have the ability to defend themselves against tyranny we the American People will be free. History show that foreign nations fear the 2nd Amendment because the Average American has the right to keep and bear arms. This in itself has prevented the Japanese from invading the American West Cost During WWII. The 2nd Amendment also has the ability to defend themselves, family, and others that are endanger from criminals. I swore an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United State Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic and to Bear True Faith and Allegiance to the Same. This mean defending the 2nd Amendment and all our rights as Americans the Socialist Democratic Party wants to destroy. God Bless America.

The confusion is only when YOU try to structure the Bill of Rights to your language. Remember when and why it was written, The well regulated militia was EVERY man and boy between 16 and 60, who had a gun. The state provided powder and shot if you were lucky. You were required to drill once a month regardless. The 1st move by a tyrannical gov't when facing mounting criticism was the attempt the confiscation of this powder, shot and any arms they could find. Resistance against this tyranny was the "shot heard around the world" Concord and Lexington.

No changes if they try and clean it up, something will be taken away. Our forefathers did a damn good job, Oh by the way most of them were in the Army