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

From my memory, I believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was the right for the people to bear arms for the purpose of defending them from the incursions from the Government upon their freedom and rights. It is no wonder that the "progressive movement" would be in favor of removing this right. They are for all power to be in the hands of Government. Let us not forget the fact that once disarmed, we can not protect ourselves from any actions from those who would do us harm personally, but, from tyrannical persons in the larger spectrum in powerful positions.

Absolutely ! It works don’t frig with it!

Leave it alone... it works, don’t fix it!

Open up a Constitutional amendment conference and there is no guarantee of what will result. They don't have to merely address what you

Nope.

Guns in the hands of the wrong people seems to be the problem. Look up and read about how many people are killed each year on our roads and highways the numbers are astonishing. There is no talk about taking away cars from people.

The Second Amendment, as ratified, reads:

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.

To shed a proper light on the intent, we can look at it as a form of resolution, thus:

Whereas, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

No - it is clear. "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." Comma's between them. Until the Cold War at the beginning of the Nuclear Age, we used extemporized forces. Our Whig beginnings had us fearful of a large standing Army. That was the tool of the Monarchs and dictators to rule the people. The Bill of Rights are prohibitive in nature. They restrict what the government can do. That protects us from the over reach. Any attempt to alter it will not be what anyone thinks.

there is no confusion,despite dc deciding that state militias were somehow reserves,we saw the fail on that when the az gov. tried to mobilize them,and Bill Clinton overrode him,we nearly had a battle,on I17.the Militia is all able body males 18-45 veterans till 65,under command of the state government.NOT THE FEDS.SADLY THIS is more important now then ever.as we have factions in dc openly trying to create unrest.I will only speak for myself,I took an oath,6 times,to defend the CONSTITUTION as it was written not as i wish it said.Im stand there.

Now after reading a bit, I wish I had never engaged in this conversation. We run this one down every few months wrapped in a different wrapper. There was one here, in a different conversation on this topic who provided the links to the appropriate government-supplied definition of the term militia encoded into our Code of Federal Regulations which very clearly and emphatically identifies the militia as a grouping of individual citizens under arms which were completely separate from any government military command. Dear sir, if you are within the sound of my plea, please quickly post that link here ASAP to shutdown this waste of time trying to convince through our own arguments those who do not know what militia means in the 2nd amendment. Don't take our word for it, take federal law for it.