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

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. I don't say that just off-the-cuff either, because to amend any part of the constitution requires a constitutional convention. During such convention people have the opportunity to change any part, not just the one part that triggered the convention. So it could result not only to a change to the 2nd amendment that some people think would be positive, but also to changes in other articles that would be negative. We have had a number of changes over the last 220+ years, mostly good, but that could change in a big way. Back to the 2nd amendment, if we remove the first phrase about a well regulated militia, we remove the proof positive that the amendment is about tyranny or threat of hostile invasion, and not about heading off to elk camp each fall. We already have enough ignorant people, even among gun owners and even two or three that might be NRA members that agree, foolishly, with the liberals who try to make it about hunting so they can reasonably take your gun rights away, except during hunting season, and by the way if it's not a classic muzzle-loading deer rifle you have no need for one, etc., etc., etc. right out of the handbook of Handgun Control Inc. Then once they decide it is an atrocity for you to kill and eat Bambi, you will have nor further need of that muzzle-loader either. And that is how a nation is disarmed.

Leave it alone. Our founding fathers knew first hand about tyranny. We should be discussing what the Progressive Left objectives are and expose them for what they are to our millenniums.

Fair question MSgt, but the better question I think is, what will happen if we do? 2nd amendment has been a long, ambiguous and touchy subject, but the fact of the matter is that if arms become illegal to the civilans we sign up to protect, we are going to have to put in a lot more effort to protect them. Only criminals would have weapons, and civilians would be defenseless against that. Not to mention all the money that we would drain out on trying to enforce such a change.

No. The SCOTUS has already decided the definition and meaning of the 2nd in the Helper v. Washington DC case. What we need is legislation to further protect the people practicing the right. I haven't seen any other right regulated as much as the second is, and further regulation needs to cease.

The question adduces a fact not in evidence. Having studied American History, I find nothing confusing about the first phrase. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1960. This may be my problem.

300,000,000 guns in civilian hands.

The "well regulated militia" is the legal underpinning of each state's national guard. I don't think that you are suggesting that states give up their national guard units, or are you?

Confusion on the language used comes from those who take the amendment out of the cultural and historical context as well as the textual context of the amendment. Those seeking to control others attempt to rewrite the definitions. The right is for every man, male or female, and is unconditional, only the use of arms is conditional.

No. This amendment is clear enough. So the words were 18th century in their way, but any amendment to this amendment would be longer in legalize, which can lead to long drawn out court proceedings over the words used. Meanings would take longer to interpet in years, than the Constitution was to be ratified. Let sleeping dogs lie, amending the 2nd could lead to amending the whole Bill of Rights.

Absolutely not. Leave it alone. Changing even one simple word will only open doors for any kind of change that someone doesn't like. We are already under heavy fire from within. I always thought, if America ever came under heavy attack, it would come from some foreign country. I would have never dreamed of coming under attack from my fellow American. So sad. I'm keeping my guns. PERIOD.