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

George Mason, the author of the 2nd amendment was asked the question as to WHO constituted the "Militia". His response, "Why, The People....the WHOLE People." AS long as this concept is understood, there should be no problem. It IS currently "unambiguous", if one understands the thinking behind the 2nd. And remember...the first battles of the Revolutionary War were at Lexington and Concord....when GOVERNMENT troops marched to seize militia weapons and stores.

The confusion most people have with the 2nd Amendment derives from their ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of the meaning of "well regualted militia". "Well regulated" in the 1780's was understood to mean "personally responsible" to be ready for defense with a functioning firearm and ammunition as well as personal provisions while acting in defense of person, property, community, or nation from enemies foreign or domestic. The 2nd Amendment does not need to be reworded, American people just need to be better educated and more "personally resposible".

don't bring it up. leave it alone. it has worked well for 241 years

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.---I've become a bit of a constitutional nut these last few years. I believe it's worded this way because the founders were talking to the states themselves. As there is no allowance for a standing army, the militias of the several states would have to be called up to handle certain issues. Also this newly formed country had not money to outfit and army, so when the militias were called up, those people would have to bring their own "arms".

Leave the 2nd Amendment alone, it covers the matter enough! Remember, at the time there was no standing Army, so having a community militia was important for defense of the community at large. So, in the sense of gated communities or subdivisions, it’s not as relevant today, and doesn’t make sense to some that live there. To those of us outside of the towns and suburbs; where one constable or deputy sherriff is all there is within 15-50 miles. The militia phrase makes more sense, where the 2nd Amendment still directly applies. Granted, there are no longer tribes of marauding natives (just gangs) or invading French (just disrespectful thieves).
Protection of life and property, that right to own and bear arms is a mighty deterrent to most, and only a irritation to the hardcore criminally minded.

Amendments were put into place for certain issues that the before form of government would give or take on a whim. Because today can not see years from now things change and may need to be changed to correct areas of uncertainty. So now that we today are asked if there needs to be clarity? Yes is what I would recommend. It should be so clear as to a 1st grader would understand. As long as there are evil people out and about. If you want to carry a weapon you shall be allowed to do so. You want to own a weapon go get one or more. No permit, no restriction, so far a large amount of mass shootings were with people that didn't get a weapon the now legal way at all. Of course I'm just one vote and I will always vote to own and bear arms.

It works just fine.. leave it be as is !

The wording of the American Constitution is very specific and should remain. IF the American Bill of Rights is changed, why not start at the very beginning ? There ARE other Bills and acts that support the 2d Amendment, like the "Efficiency of Militia" Bill (1902), and the "Dick Act" (1909) that spells out the word "militia", and the amount of guns a citizen CAN have. Look them up and don't assume the meaning. AGAIN, the wording is very specific.

It would be impossible to have a constitutional convention to amend the 2nd amendment without losing it at this point. The forces of evil would probably remove it, believing in their heart that it is no longer necessary. They are wrong. But we cannot give them the chance.

Anyone who can Google can look up the meaning. "Well regulated", at that time, meant "trained" or "proficient" and "militia" meant "any able bodied man". Also, I don't trust our politicians enough to allow them to change it. Just look at those clowns. They can't pass one single legislation with less than 1000 pages, without attaching some unrelated B.S. to it and, wording it in such a way that no one who isn't a lawyer can understand. Hell, I would bet that 90% of them don't even read the bills and, wouldn't understand them if they did. So, NO, they should leave it alone.