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

No need - the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Simple. Let's not fool around with it. We may bear arms with some logical restrictions (felons, mentally incompetent, spouse beaters, etc.). When the 2nd was written they were talking about people - US citizens - bearing arms to prevent a tyrannical government from destroying our country as it was meant to be. There's now no question other than requiring people to obtain a permit to carry (this is a whole different conversation). Bottom line: There is nothing ambiguous about the 2nd amendment - so says the US Supreme Court.

No! Read it, it's meaning is clear and not confusing at all. Our forefathers understood what they were writing. They foresaw thing happening like what happened to Poland just prior to WWII. While in was in the military, I had a sign on my wall. This was from a Russian General, It said, " Russia would not try to take the USA. It was not because of the American military, but the civilians that had more guns than their military." Anyone that wants to change or do away with our Constitution wants to change or do away with our way of live. Our nation has risen to it present position in the world because of our Constitution and the guidance and protection it gives the our everyday citizens. I have been around this large ball called Earth, and there is no other country like this one. None of the other developed countries offer what ours does to their citizens. This country may not be perfect but it is closer that any other country. Most of the people of this country don't know the price we have and are paying every single day to insure they have these freedoms.

The federalist papers makes it clear that first phrase was deliberate and intentional. The point of the 2nd amendment according to Hamilton was to allow for the arming of civilians in order to form state militias to fight for the states and the country. To him a federal army was the antithesis of liberty and therefore believed that militias were necessary to their security and freedom.
"Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp)

We have since gotten far from this this ideal, which is why you are even asking about if the phrase should exist.
Personally I am against any constitutional convention that would allow for the type of change that you are asking for, regardless of intentions of those who initiate it. Several other commenters have stated worries about the 2nd amendment being changed in ways that they dislike, but they are being too narrow with their concern. A convention would allow for the whole document to be rewritten if so desired, which to me is terrifying. I have no faith in the outcome of such a venture.

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.

It is my opinion that we should leave the second amendment as the framers wrote it. It is unequivocal in its wording: "A well-armed militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to self defense is part and parcel of the words
"security of a free state". Can't get much planer that that. Webster's Dictionary defines a militia as "A group of able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. No qualifiers regarding military service before or after. The framers were uncommonly insightful in the wording of those articles. We will always have a segment of the population that will interpret the second and all of the other amendments according to their own perspective. In simpler words, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

Leave it alone there is nothing confusing about the way it is written

Our founding fathers were much smarter than we are today and based on their lessons learned wrote the constitution taking into account those that would destroy this country

Reading the comments, it brings to mind a comment I read a long, long time ago. "The problems with the world mean there's too many people messing with it educated beyond their intelligence." Further evidence can be gathered on the college campuses around the country which block free speech by conservatives through violent protests against opposing ideas to what the professors teach. Hard to expect they read the Constitution with any study of the language of the time it was written. Add they've been taught the State knows better, and it is no surprise they don't see their problem is totally their fault.

Im not confused by any part of the 2nd amendment. Anyone who is confused by it should go back to "old school" learning of the English language instead of the liberal common core misrepresentation of anything and everything not left leaning

I don't think we ought to mess with it. I really wish Madison hadn't used that confusing phrase when drafting it, but at that time it made sense because it was common knowledge that in times of trouble the militia, composed of all able-bodied men, would respond. Now, our society is not organized in remote groups and an organized militia is not generally necessary. That, however, does not affect the main clause - the right of the People to keep and bear arms. If we were to throw it up to amendment by the process in the Constitution, anti-gun groups would also have their say and the meaning of the remainder of the amendment would be modified, perhaps even lost. If it's working, don't fix it.