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

It was put in there for a good reason so leave it alone. The way things are going I am afraid we will use it.

If anyone could read English it is very clear, there is a comma on this so two connected but independent thoughts. “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Obviously a militia is needed is necessary to maintain freedom, that being said the people’s right to keep and bear arms is necessary to prevent the establishment of tyranny. We have already allowed this to be watered down by the progressives. The intent was that the ordinary non-military citizenry, yes even us veterans, be armed as well as the military if so desired to make sure a tyrant doesn’t take over and use the military to wnforce their will.

Our right to defend ourselves is God given and this right is affirmed in the US Constitution and requires NO AMENDMENT or change unless you do not believe in absolute truth and in the absolute right to defend yourself, your family, and those under risk of physical harm from those with the means to harm them and are in preparation or the conduct of harming an innocent. Those seeking to change the Constitution don't support this right. Gun violence is a social and mental health issue not an issue of tools (guns). In years past kids would take guns to school so they could hunt on the way home with no gun violence issues. You can't desensitize a generation of kids by video games and violent movies (free speech or not), institutionalize hiding mental health and social issues under the guise of HIPPA protection, and allow state corruption NOT reporting said information to the US agencies responsible for regulating arms trade (California, Illinois, New York, etc) and not expect violence. Even with skewed FBI Crime statistics (adding suicide as gun violence), you are much more likely to die from being beaten or kicked to death, through medical error, traffic accidents, etcetera than gun violence. The truth is the truth- when legal gun ownership is high, violent crime is lower; where gun regulation/prohibition is highest there is a corresponding increase violent crime. Indeed most gun violence happens in the four states with the most restrictive gun laws, that fail to report as required by law, and also have the highest rates of governmental corruption allegations. Address the root issues not tools, if you hate guns say so but your hatred of the 2nd Amendment will NOT stop the violence, addressing its root cause will. For those that want to take away my means to protect my family, my community and myself, come get my guns I am waiting for you. NO the 2nd Amendment does not need to be changed but the social issues must be addressed to lessen gun violence which in the vast majority of cases IS perpetuated by folks that illegally have a firearm AND have recognized mental health issues that have not be reported as required by existing laws.

it's only confusing to the people who want to put the people under their thumb. the people have one obligation to replace the whole mess that is hard to do if you can't defend yourself

I'd say this is right on target. If there was a problem with legal gun owners, it would have shown itself already. Having said that, law abiding gun owners are getting sick and tired of being blamed for criminals and their deeds.

IF you open a constitutional convention to change the wording of the 2nd admement, then you open a change to all of the constitution. Leave it alone

What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?

I am a lefty- But there is one thing I have known, and it is the people need and have the right to ownership.

So, let me be sure I understand your question. You are asking if our current Legislators are smart enough to correct the language of our Founding Fathers? Our current legislators....the ones who cannot balance a budget, allow bureaucrats to supersede their roles, welcome illegal immigrants, who have gotten wealthy while serving in office, who fail to follow through on campaign promises....those legislators are in no way qualified to change one word of a document that has stood the test of time.
How would they remove the “ambiguity”? Would you trust them to correctly re-word the document as they see fit? I would not, MSG Cater. I most certainly would not trust them one bit.

there is a saying some people may remember " WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS".