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

no. The whole of the people is militia. that has been established in law so there is no need to change the wording, just educate the ignorant

I'm not sure it would make a huge difference. Look how the first, second, forth, tenth amendment fare. It's words on paper these days regardless of their supposed guarantee.

The issue with the second amendment and people not understanding it is that they don’t understand things like the spirit of the law, legalese, and the fact that it wasn’t written for the everyday citizen. The entire Constitution is a legal contract between the federal government and the citizens of the republic. If you would like to change something that is confusing, change the name of this country from The United States of America to The Republic of American States. Then, people would understand that the federal government and its association with each state is not a democracy.

No, the framers who wrote “A well-regulated militia” for a very good reason. The Supreme Court has since changed the meaning to apply to every citizen, but that was NOT the original intent, meaning or application.

Also, to “change the wording” requires passing a new amendment that nullifies the original. There is no constitutional provision to “edit” the constitution or any of it’s amendments.

Does this read well?

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.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

The text of the Second Amendment followed by a dictionary definition of "militia" from Merriam-Webster.

What is a "well regulated militia"? What is well regulated?

Having served twenty years plus in the Armed Forces, in my trade, MOS, or NEC, depending on your branch of service, I understand very well the need for an armed force to defend our country.

Part 1a of the definition seems to address the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces or the National Guard.

Part 1b seems to address the military in general.

Part 2 is broader, and seems to address male citizens declared by law to be subject to military service.

The kicker is, apparently, there is no generally agreed upon definition for "a well regulated militia". The Armed Forces are well regulated. The National Guard and Reserve components of the Armed Forces are well regulated. How is a broad population of citizens who may be eligible for service regulated? Exactly what does well regulated mean when it is used in addressing a broad swath of the population that may be eligible for military service?

Regulations that may limit ownership or possession of firearms by ANYONE (excluding, of course, convicted felons) are railed against by many is being contrary to the 2nd Amendment. Before our previous President left office, he pushed for and I think (?) tried to establish and order that mandated mental health background checks to be included as part of the checks required prior to the purchase/possession of a firearm. After the current POTUS took office, and even before that proposed regulation took effect, the current President repealed it.

Just what is a "well regulated" militia? Does it mean that anyone that is part of a pool of men that are of age to be eligible for military service. That is not clear. As part of the definition does not include women, does that mean women are not to be part of a "well regulated militia" and therefore do not have the right to purchase, own, and possess firearms?

This needs to be clarified to eliminate confusion. There is no road forward on this issue until apples are apples and oranges are oranges, a definition that clearly defines what a "well regulated militia" actually is.

All things being equal, if “ changing the language “ is the same as “ admending the Constitution “, Article V allows for admending, or making changes to, the constitution. Their have been 27 admendment to our geart Constitution in 227 years. Historically, both Republicans as well as Democrats have suggested changes to the Constitution. A current example would be the push for a “ Balanced budget admendment “.

The first clause is only confusing for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) the person is not very well versed in the english language. They don't understand clauses or know the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause, or 2) the above is NOT true but they are so against the right of individuals to bear arms that they have to create convoluted logic, wittingly or not, in an attempt to make reality and their beliefs compatible. This leads to such convoluted reasoning as 'modern guns didn't exist then so it doesn't apply to them' and that the authors suspended the meaning of standard english clauses for just this one sentence for some reason.
The entire Second Amendment boils down to one, and only one, thing. To unambiguously state that the government may not interfere with OUR right.

I don't understand. There is nothing confusing about any part of the second amendment. The right to personal defense from ANY threat, foreign or domestic, civilian, military or government. Just because a hunting rifle was the same as a military weapon, there was no specific language for the distinction between them. Threat is met with equal or greater. I don't understand how this gets so confusing for the left.

No I think we should have special classes for those Americans who have trouble understanding the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment but why change when some people don't understand it? Just educate them instead!