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

No changes should be made..a lot of individuals blame firearms in the commission of crime; however, the firearm is a tool and the individual(s) make the choice how to use said tool..

Leave the Constitution alone. Leave gun ownership alone. Safety measures and things to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane are common sense, but that's as far as it goes with me. Anyone that can't agree on these is part of the problem and unable to offer any solution(s). The Constitution is what has held us together all this time and other than during the Civil War we've never been this "politically" divided. Some might argue otherwise with regard to civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60's and that's their opinion. Mine is that we now have a "us" and "them" mentality politically, and even see each other as the "opposition", and that can never be good. Man is often his own worst enemy and we shouldn't buy into any weak rationale or sales job to fix something that is not broken.

I think I like the way that's phrased. With a majority controlled Congress it's possible but my concern is that if a Constitutional Convention were to be called it could get muddied up and altered in a way we wouldn't want.

There is nothing ambiguous about it. "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." The problem is that most people are uneducated about the origins, intents and meaning of Constitutional language. The best alternative to changing the wording of our Constitution is actually TEACHING our kids, adults and even Congress what it says and why. How do people understand their rights if they don't even know what they are and why they have them? In my personal opinion, no kid should be able to graduate HS without an in-depth knowledge of the Constitution and how our government works. Our leftist government has done a good job creating ignorance among the vast majority of Americans which is why we have idiots like Antifa running around destroying stuff and a bunch of Socialists on the left side of the aisle. If we begin playing with the language such as defining why people need to be armed, then we will have people start arguing about what is really necessary to protect oneself. We already have a lot of this because lefties and socialists who have created the ignorance problem and like to depend on the ignorance of people, ignore that little piece: "shall not be infringed". If we are to question the number of arms or what kind people may own individually, then why do we not limit other things that can hurt or kill, i.e. cars, knives, baseball bats, should we be able to learn and practice martial arts or even which self defense tactics are allowable? I mean really, we don't want to hurt our assailant too badly.....right? The individual states attempt to and have in many cases usurped the Constitutional rights of the people in their states and they need to have their butts sued off.

It is fine the way it is. Everyone is a militia if the need arises. The important part to take away is that after the comma it does NOT say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is pretty clear to me.

Under English Law (which the colonys had and obeyed - even to the point where they rebelled to keep the goverment of England from changing it) the Militia consisted of every able-bodied citizen to be armed. If you remember your history, the British were marching to disarm the colonials and they resisted at Concord and fired "the shot heard around the world."
It's not confusing to those that learn from history.
The Constitution is an intergrated whole.

First off the first sentence is not ambiguous. The militia at the time was "we the people." It still is "we the people." The 2nd amendment is not so we can hunt deer, elk and bear. It si so we can protect ourselves against gov't tyranny. Those 27 words were well crafted by our founding fathers and the only interpretation needed is absolutely none. Those who feel the need to interpret those 27 well crafted original words, and add commas where there were none, have only one goal. To disarm Americans so there is no resistance to the new world order. But as long as there are patriots there will be resistance.

No, I think the language of the Second Amendment should be left "as is" if for no other reason than to piss off liberals when they try argue semantics. One of their favorites is "well regulated" means TO THEM "federal firearms regulations and laws." It means nothing of the kind. Back in the day, "well regulated" meant "trained and disciplined.

Another major point on the EXACT meaning and intent of the Second Amendment can be found in the early various state constitutions of the former original 13 colonies and early states which joined the union after the Revolutionary War on the topic of individuals "bearing arms." Most of them are a bit more specific less confusing yet reinforce the fact that self defense is a God given right and NOT a "privilege" granted by a secular government.

I agree with all of those who say it should not be amended. I have been a practicing attorney for the last fifteen years and seen enough of the Congressional and Judicial branches to know we don't want Congress or Judges "reworking" what the Founding Fathers accomplished with the Second Amendment. That can of worms won't turn out like anyone thinks it will - leave it alone.