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

No there isn't anything confusing about it.

I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.

There is nothing confusing there. There is only confusion in those that want confusion to exist...................... the F left in America.

The second Amendment is fine. Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban and enforce it. My experience was that other than Law Enforcement persons tended not to take it seriously. We would seize the weapons only to have someone return an illegal weapon to a person who was weapon prohibited

No. It's not confusing if you read it as written. Pay attention to the punctuation.

There is no problem in order for their to be a well regulated militia The PEOPLE'S RIGHT to Keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed

It is already clear and unambiguous. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment was written the way it was to stop individual states from enforcing laws that would prevented federal government from "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" per Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution. Many different versions were proposed and failed. What we have now was the best they could agree on back then. Starting from scratch now to fix it could very well backfire, given the political climate...

I understand what you are getting at, but it's not the wording that needs to changed. It's the education and misinterpretation of the wording that needs to be changed.

It's just fine the way it is. People just need to understand 18th century thinking and the definition of words as they pertain to the 18th century.

Any attempt to clarify the wording in the 2nd amendment would also leave it open to be rewritten by future anti gunners, it would be better to simply add a clearly worded amendment that the 2nd amendment and it's rights are not open for interpretation or modification for any future anti gun legislation and that NO new anti gun legislation is ever to be considered in any capacity for legislation.