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

one word CHICAGO

That confusing first phrase is the reason for the 2nd amendment.

I think that anyone with ANY intellect realizes that the amendment was written at a time of black powder muzzle loadersand never dreampt of in a world of AK 47s and Tech 9s....the amendment should BE amended and brought into the 21st century.

Why are folks worried about this? It is perfectly clear the way it is. The first sentence make sure that you have a connection to the militia if you want to have a gun. How could this be more clear??
I am sure Gen Neller CMC of the Marine Core would agree.

We need to work on the other laws to make this a moot point.

I totally agree with the right to bear arms,but not an assault style weapon. All you need to defend your home and property is at most a hand gun ,maybe two and a shotgun. We will never see a " zombie apocalypse" as so many people think. As a matter of fact, if you think you need a trove of weapons to fight off the government...you're never going to win such a battle. So then, where the hell is the need for an assault rifle in a home?!? Hunting??? If you can't hunt worth a damn with a regular rifle hunting with an AR-15 won't make you a better hunter. Maybe you ought to take up fishing instead.
Just my opinion. And yes,I am a legal gun carrier, but I am not blinded by the NRA's hype.
Too many children are dieing in our country due to reckless ownership of high powered assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Hell,you can even legally purchase a 50 Caliber Machine Gun...WTF for?!?
People are just being ridiculous.

The Second Amendment should stay as it is. It’s been this way for over 200 years and can continue to do the job. LEAVE IT ALONG

Leave it as it is. I don't see the need for military style weapons in civilian hands. We all served or are serving. I think we can all agree on that level of thinking. And honestly, anyone that thinks it is okay for someone with no training to buy and keep an AR in their home for self defense really needs to take inventory of what their priorities in life are, because damn.
So, in a country where kids can't drink and smoke (in some states) until they are 21 and your favorite band can't get play on the radio unless Clearchannel says its okay, I am good with limiting the types of guns available to the general public. That isn't infringing on my right to bear arms. That said, why do felons lose their second amendment rights again? I'm talking about someone that stole a pizza in California type felons. Anyway, go team! I'm with you fellas.

That sounds great, but my question to you is: what do we do about the people who have no business owning a gun?

I don't see a need. There is also a militia act that defines the American militia as any able body male 17-45, who is or has declared his intention to be a citizen of the United States, and any female citizen that is a member of the National Guard. There is more to it of course, but that covers the ambiguity.