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

I also say leave it alone and start holding Congress accountable for breaches of their oaths of office.

the first phrase is only confusing if your an idiot.

Most Americans don't have a problem understanding the 2nd Admentment. Law school liberals----not so much.

It is plane english.
What is so confusing about it.
Shall not be infringed upon, means exactly that.
Hands off, no trespassing, cannot be changed.

No, leave it alone. There is no need to change it. It has lasted this long and has been understood. The schools need to change the curriculum and start teaching so it can be understood as when I was in school. It is very clear the way it is written

There is no confusion except for the liberal interpretation. Judge Antonin Scalia said this, the comma mean each and everyone of has the rights to individually own firearms. There is the pure intent. End of story.

Our President before Trump made a statement that he said "The constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten for our time", can you imagine how messed up it would be today if something like that would take place. The way our congress can't even fix the problems we have today with some of our laws because everyone has their own ideas and can not come together, changing the 2nd amendment would be a disaster and we would be at war with each other and then President Lincoln's statement would come true that powers out side of the US would not destroy us, we would be destroyed from with. Not his words exactly but close.

The meaning is clear when one understands how the words were used and what their meanings were at the time the BoR, the 2nd amendment and the Constitution were written. "Militia" at that time was simply another way of saying an armed citizenry, "well regulated" meant operating properly. None of our Rights are given or provided by the Constitution or of Bill of Rights. Rights are Natural and Inalienable, Natural because they exist because we do, Inalienable because no one or government has the right or power to take them away. "The security of a free state" also addresses the condition of existence (the state) of Freedom and Liberty. A citizenry that is armed is necessary to remain free.

It's not confusing if you know the meaning of the verbiage and what the Founders understood the militia to be. "Well regulated" in the context of the 2nd Amendment means skilled in the use of fire arms. It's nothing to do with "regulating" a National Guard. The militia was considered to be "all the people". The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard or regulations concerning it. So...All the people skilled in the use of firearms being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The confusion comes from not knowing our history. Only people have rights, everything else is powers and authorities granted to government or our military. All of the Bill of Rights is about individual rights and the further limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment, for clarity, that if not mentioned, it's left to the states or the people themselves. That's pretty good clarity from the Founders.

If you do that,where will it stop. That’s just opening the door to more abuse. The second amendment makes the first amendment possible and without a first we would not have a second. Leave it be. The Founders were some pretty smart guys and I’m sure they foresaw what could happen.