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

While you are entitled to your opinion you are clearly a fool.

The 2nd amendment was never about fighting indians, but to protect the rights of individuals against the possible tyranny of any future goverment activity.

What cannot be denied is that having things the way they are currently is a thorn in the side of our government. Should we blindly trust them? I would say if we vote then no, because if we trust them we wouldn't need to, now whats to stop the government from becoming a dictatorship by proxy? A well armed citizenry, or a well armed militia funded by the same tyrranous government?

So, as a "Senior Weapons Instructor" how much time did you spend training soldiers on the AR-10/15?

George Mason, the author of the 2nd amendment, and the other framers understood that "the militia" was comprised of "the People"...."the WHOLE People". THAT means that the right of "the People" (The WHOLE People: every citizen), has the right to keep and bear arms, and that right SHALL (not may, not might,) NOT be infringed. It is the ONLY article in the 1st ten amendments where an infringement is absolutely forbidden.

Agree with all you say up to your last sentence. I think you assume facts not in evidence. Anyone able to afford multiple firearms in the 18th century was certainly not prohibited from owner such.

Agreed, MSgt Cater. Read up on Jeffersons ideas of firearms ownership and it appears, clearly, that "hobby" ownership of firearms does indeed become a player in our rights as Americans!

"Well regulated" as used in the 2nd amendment means "regulated" like all being armed similarly, much like all the clocks in a clock shop all showing the same time. (Which would mean, owning an AR-15 platform would be not only acceptable, but required if you buy into a "standing militia", such as the National Guard (which wasn't formed until 1903)). It never meant, government "controlling" it. During WWII, Rifle Clubs in the Northwest were used as additional watchers along the coast. That is THE prime example of a modern use of the "militia", as it was intended to be used. Actually, the "draft" is (although usually ignored by those in power) unconstitutional. "Violence" and "video games" notwithstanding, your idea of not allowing the militia to have weapons at home is exactly WHY we have the 2nd amendment. The Founding Fathers were all about the "People" being in charge. The federal government was not SUPPOSED to have all the power it has now. (The Constitution has been violated by all 3 branches of government starting about 6 years after it was ratified.) The Founding Fathers not only envisioned collecting firearms, but were well aware of advances in technology, and knew of semi-auto weapons in development during their lifetimes. Crude, yes, but it was the start of what we have today!

I reference the Minute Men in counterpoint to the National Guard reference. The Minute Men were regarded as the militia and also part of the Founding Fathers' frame of reference. In fact, the reason the Amendment was written. I recommend Steuben-style training for all those folks who want to own weapons, but don't necessarily wish to risk any harm to themselves by enlisting in the military. It's escapism and mostly just a fascination with weapons better reserved for the battlefield.

I challenge your statement that single shot firearms were the weapon of choice . . . Single shot firarms were the only small arms available. The 2A right affords the "militia" the necessary arms to "compete" with the arms afforded the standing armies, thus preventing standing armies of the government, the opportunity for that government to force, by military firepower, the will of the government!

SCPO Douglas Munyon - Chief, you are taking things out of context and to extremes. There is absolutely no phrase in the 2nd Amendment stating to the style of weapons that exist today, just weapons PERIOD..., as for the term Militia, today it is equated to the National Guard of Each State of the Union NOT the Federal Military as that was never envisioned at that time. Weapon ownership by individuals was in large part a necessity due tot sparse population in the countryside, neighbors lived many miles apart, thus, safety was paramount from the wildlife and for hunting for food. Weapon ownership in the cities and bigger towns was sparse if at all (not even the police).

People will always argue the 2nd Amendment gives inalienable rights to gun ownership when it does not, it only identifies a militia. Americans are very good at justifying every means in the book for their own selfish ends absolving their actions into context or on the person being affected or standing next to them by their individual decisions. The fallout of contradicting conditions our Country finds itself Politically across the spectrum today has our house standing divided today because an individual thinks he can stock 40 weapons which he can automate through the efforts of other peoples greed allowing him to automate his weapons to kill and maim hundreds of harmless civilians in Las Vegas just as use of vehicles to attack peaceful protestors in the same vain, that is an aside to the everyday murder rate and the most heinous of that are those that involve our children.

When does one type of weapon become okay over another? Better yet, when does reason start becoming the beginning focal point of our conversation about law and order plus safety? It cannot be one sided, mutuality has to be the consensus otherwise the madness continues for our grandchildren, which one will it be?

Our founding fathers knew full well that technology is not stagnant and citizens had the God given right to have the same weapons as the military. From SCOTUS United States vs. Miller 1939: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

The use of the term "technology" has changed significantly over the last 200 years. Before the 20th century, the term was uncommon in English, and it was used either to refer to the description or study of the useful arts[3] or to allude to technical education, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chartered in 1861).[4]

Fortunately amending the Constitution is MUCH MORE complicated than who hold court in a particular house of congress. An amendment MUST be passed in BOTH houses by a 2/3 majority of their respective members AND MUST be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Regardless of the population of the states. North Dakota counts as much as California in this case. Similar, but not the same, as the Electoral College. MUCH more difficult to di than passing a law.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-v

I understand all of that, I was just pointing out that if everything you just mentioned could fall in place for the 2A it could certainly fall into place against it down the line. If dems want to change it they'd have to jump through hoops and fight against the fact there is no precedent of changing it. If we broke that precedent for them its just one less hoop to jump through down the line. Pandora's box is always best left shut.