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

"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 Constitution IS a living document. The framers made it so. If it wasn't, they would not have included rules on how to modify, add, or delete ANY of the amendments.

The only God given rights are "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." as stated in the Declaration of Independence; all other rights are man-made, as iterated or inferred in the Constitution.

The left, for the most part, is not interested in taking away just any weapons. They are interested in the safety and well being of all. As a former Marine, I swore to protect this nation. As a civilian I believe my oath is still valid. To that end, I do not believe the average citizen needs an AR-15, or similar weapon for self defense. By extension, any weapon of a similar nature, or which has been designed to look like or emulate a military style weapon is also unnecessary. First, I think I can safely say that not one single owner of these type of weapons is a member of a well regulated militia. Second, does anyone really think, if it came down to it, that a bunch of untrained wannabes could actually stand up against the US military? Third does any sane person really think the US military would actually take up arms against the civilian population?

Anyway, the problem isn't with legal gun ownership. It is with ownership by those who would normally be considered unfit to own a firearm. Why anyone would be against taking steps to prevent more killings is beyond me. You don't put out a fire by throwing more gasoline on it.

The Bill of RIGHTS is NOT AMENDABLE by any LEVEL or BRANCH of GOVERNMENT.

Show me in the Constitution where the Government was DELEGATED ANY AUTHORITY to REGULATE SPEECH? to REGULATE THE PRESS? TO REGULATE OUR WORSHIP? TO REGULATE ASSEMBLY? OR TO REGULATE OUR ARMS? Etc.

The Government has never been delegated any of these authorities, so how can they AMEND the Bill of RIGHTS when they have no authority to regulate what the Bill of RIGHTS protects?

The Constitution is a Contract among the states, ratified over 3 years before the Bill of Rights was drafted, debated and ratified. The Constitution is a LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT or rather COMPACT and is just as legally binding today as it was 200 years ago.

No one needs a lawyer to translate it, nor a judge to offer an opinion, the most one needs is a 1790 version of Noah Webster's Dictionary and one can easily read and understand it for themselves. The Federalist Papers are the "sales pitches" for the Constitution and Hamilton speaks of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84. Hamilton says the following several years BEFORE the Actual Bill of RIGHTS was ratified. Read this short excerpt;
""I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. "

Amendments 11 thru 27 are amendments to the body of the text of the Constitution. Of what body of text do amendments 1 thru 10 amend? They don't because the Bill of Rights is a totally separate Document. 12 amendments were submitted to the Delegation for review and at the end of the Debates, 10 came out and were ratified to be attached to the Constitution and with the Bill of Rights attached the remaining states signed the Constitution. The goal for the UNION was not have only 75% of the states be a part of it, but all the states and several would not sign the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was attached. The Constitution got the required 75% of the existing states to sign it and ratify it some 3 and half years prior to the Bill of Rights. The remaining states came into the Union when the Bill of Rights was attached and Vermont which was a Sovereign and Independent State all of it's own, joined in.

The Wheel on a 1789 cannon is part of the Cannon, but is NOT a cannon part. Same with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution, but the Constitution is a Compact with all of the states and Defines the Limited Authorities of the Centralized Government and lists some restrictions to the states. The Bill of Rights is a DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL God given, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS with further restrictions to the Centralized Government.

The Bill of RIGHTS is a DECLARATION the same as the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and can the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE be AMENDED? No! not even if it was an amendment, because it is a DECLARATION and not a CONTRACT.

The SUPREME LAW of the land is the Constitution and that is a plain and simple fact and lawyers want people to think they have a power no other has, because they can maybe recite court OPINIONS. Judges issue OPINIONS. The SCOTUS nor the Justices of that court have any Authority delegated to them to determine what is or is not constitutional. If anyone says that they do, then please provide the Article, section and clause where that authority lies. In Heller vs D.C. an individual sued for his INDIVIDUAL GOD Given RIGHT and the only duty of the SCOTUS was to hear the case. Any further opinions were just that.

I offer quotes from our framers and these quotes' sources can be found easily on line or in the Library of Congress.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

I will take what the framers say over lawyer or judge any day of the week, as the framers knew exactly what they meant, lawyers and judges love to make people think they can translate meanings that are not there. Judges can only offer OPINIONS and when one researches their background they will be lucky to find if they have ever even read the Constitutions. That is why a court case can be appealed, re researched and if the NEW lawyer trips over another document that contradicts what the first court case stated, then that is over turned and the NEW opinion takes over. That is how the legal system works, they really do not have a clue unless they have read and understood every document of the time and talked with the framers themselves. They refer to prior court cases, I refer to the Documents, federalist papers and correspondence of our Framers.

Once again how can our Bill of Rights be Amended by a Government that has never been delegated any authority to regulate any of our rights and if yo say that it can be amended and they do have the authority to regulate our Rights, show men Article, Section and Clause of either the U.S. Constitution or the State Constitution.

Here is also an interesting piece from a document where it clearly shows that the PEOPLE were armed with the same as the STANDING ARMIES they would have to confront or a corrupt Government. Keep in mind that the WHOLE of the people were the Militia and males from 15 to 50 were required to attend assemblies. The Revolution was fought mainly by common folk and the Continental Army was small as compared to the militias and common folk. The War of 1812 fought by the Militias as was much of the Civil War. So in conclusion Scalia was wrong, we are to be equally armed as our potential enemies are.

"shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, "

"In 1779, the General Assembly passed a disarming act which was aimed primarily at Tories. It declared that "it is very improper and dangerous that persons disaffected to the liberty and independence of this state should possess or have in their own keeping, or elsewhere, any fire arms ...."[124] The act empowered militia lieutenants
to disarm any person or persons who shall not have taken any oath or affirmation of allegiance to this or any other state, and against whom information on oath shall be given before any justice of the peace, that such person is suspected to be disaffected to the independence of this state; and shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, or any blunderbuss, wall piece, musket, fusee, carbine, or pistols or any other firearms, or any hand gun ... out of any building, house or place belonging to such persons.[125]"

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Jefferson was POTUS just a few years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

Joseph Story was a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845, I think he knows more than some lawyer or justice in the 2000s.

I don't think there is really any ambiguity at all. If people would stop to think about it for a half second they would realize the interpretation that the second amendment only applies only to the Militia or the Government is crazy. (Seriously, why would the government need to affirm its own "right" to bear arms?)

"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." If you were to drop the middle clause "Becuase apparently its just filler", does "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." make any sense at all? Any perceived ambiguity is either someone deliberately misreading it in bad faith to push an agenda or have been listening to those people and not giving it even a first thought.

A lot of well thought out and informative responses here. Farmers, mechanics, engineers, ect. understand one very important lesson learned through experience! If it isn't broke don't try to FIX IT!!

The founding fathers had great vision in seeing not only what was in our past but future as well. The Electoral College? Wow. Can you imagine the country without that? That little thing in the constitution changes a country. The US Constitution is not a “living, breathing and out dated document. It is a never changing constitution that is the very basic foundation of our great country.

No.

The Second Amendment,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. Which word do you want to eliminate

Since it is the people or citizens of any given community that would make up the Militia
The Militia maintains the security of a free state
Without the ARMS The Militia would be nothing but a group of people that can learn to march in time and look pretty in there uniforms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, makes the rest of the Bill of Rights relevant

That's how Communist did after Vietnam war. Took the guns away, and then they turn around to use it against ppl. the Govt. can do whatever they please

The 2A wasn't about self-defense against thuggery & crime; it was/is about defending self from a tyrannical government. Any change in verbiage skews the true meaning at the heart of the Second Amendment.

Nope! If there is one thing I learned in the 58 years I have been alive and the 20 I spent in the Navy it is - "If it ain't broke; don't fix it"!